According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.
Friend, I’m sorry but you’re fucked up in the head.
Ask yourself the question: does human life have value by itself? (independent of everything, including age, race, employment, etc).
If your answer is yes, then every human life should be protected, and we as a society need to be organised in a way that provides the minimum necessities for survival (like food, water, etc). This is what the whole world, except the US, just said.
On the other end, what you’re saying is that life in itself is worthless and that value is given by some other factor (like being employed). This means that, until proven otherwise, everyone is disposable. If you think through the implications of this, you’ll realize you can do whatever to them - kill them on the spot, harvest their organs, cut them to pieces to feed your pigs, … Is this the world you want to live in?
For the sake of completeness, let’s explore the implications of #1, where people get “money for nothing”. What’s usually tested is giving people just enough money to cover their most basic needs. Would some people stop working, if they didn’t have to worry about starving? I’m sure some would. But would you?
Because I, for one, like to be able to afford my luxuries, and will keep working to not give them up.
Let’s go another way with this.
I don’t know if you have any kids or not – this is entirely hypothetical. But I have discovered people think more about a topic the less abstract it is.
You have two kids, aged 4 and 5. Then you get hit by an asteroid that kills you. No one else can take them in.
Wouldn’t you like for the state to look after them? To at least give them food, water, shelter and care until they grow up until they are eighteen? To do all this whether they can earn their way or not? To do it just because it is the right thing to do?
Not because they believe the kids will pay them back or be worth something when they grow up, but because they believe the kids have worth now simply because they are living, sentient human beings?
Or would you rather that your kids are left out on the street to die? forced to make their own way in the world at the age of 4 and 5? that they will only be fed if they can show they have worth?
Just curious.
Thats actually an interesting train of thought imo.
I personally believe every person that is, or will be in the future, a valuable part of society should get access to social help. Be it food, basic income, housing etc etc.
I got this believe because i myself came from a poor family, with my mom basically raising 5 very difficult children on her own. However, all 5 of us became very valuable people in society but have all become a positive influence around us. One is product manager, another is cto, another is data centre engineer, all us have helped people who need it etc etc
Without the social support we would never have gotten there.
I believe in those principals because i believe those people should be supported so they can flourish, personally, or help humankind as a whole.
What you said explains perfectly why i feel this way haha
Your example here has the nuance of future expectation, however. You’re stating that taking care of the children is an investment, not just something done because they are human beings and should be treated as such. Gabe on the other hand is saying simply that it is the right thing to do, regardless of where the kids’ lives lead down the road.
