vicdan wrote:Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But the few elements that have some form of general consensus paint a picture of them being supported by charity of others. Did they make them pay, ask or just waited patiently for an offer? I dunno but certainly they didn't seem to have a job.
By whatever means, they persuaded others that they were
worth supporting. That is what I expect of any philosopher who wishes to live in indolence yet has great things to offer to humanity.
The moment Unidian, instead of demanding upkeep as his moral right,
persuades others that his ideas are worthy enough to merit the upkeep of his indolence, I will cease having a problem with his preferred way of surviving.
Well, he's certainly trying to persuade. Do you mean with 'worthy' some demonstrable beneficial effect on society, or a personal evaluation?
In a more general sense, what kind of worth would you allow from non-workers? Literary output, volunteer work, petitions, character assessments?
If someone desires not to work then wouldn't it have worth to give that person what he wants? Contentment is good for a society, I'd say.
vicdan wrote:The Greek used slaves, another very successful game strategy by the way! Certainly they were forcing others to toil!
Indeed; but not by claiming that they
deserved a portion of others' labor simply due to being indolent.
Which claim did the Greek citizens make then to justify slavery?
Of course they thought they deserved it and the power to implement their claims was grounded in the morality upheld by that culture, and not merely by some individual choice.
It seems to me Unidian is not claiming you and me should pay him, but that the whole state, society, our culture should change its working class morality.
vicdan wrote:By the way, just curious: how many examples from history would you accept before letting it support my supposition?
Try a couple, we'll take it from there.
It's hard to know where to begin. Many examples are there in the last few ages of people helped by family and friends to survive in some degree of luxury or independence. Someone offered, and nobody ever tells the underlying motivation (guilt, blackmail, morals?) and it was accepted. But we have now a different society where the state does a lot of this care-taking no matter if help is needed because of medical, psychological or other 'short-comings'. This distinction is just not the issue.
Your idea that many people would be tempted by the lure of not-working and remaining poor seems not based in any reality. I live in a famous well-fare state but the only substantial abuse here is by people who work off the books, or in another country
and try to get (one or more) benefits at the same time, thereby increasing their small salary a bit. A problem of administrative control and some weird resistance to deal with taboos like immigrants, social classes and various problems based in ethnical and cultural differences (often morality again).
Really, the obvious point is that most people, apart from the blessed few who really are driven to do what they do by immaterial motives, want to be consumer or to be able to consume at a certain level. Not mere surviving and having basic necessities. To understand this you might have to experience it yourself. One could say that the current implementations of capitalism are driven by this increasing desire to consume and having the means to. So one doesn't break an all-covering social contract, but only the 'consumerist' contract by refusing to work.
vicdan wrote:diebert wrote:But in a society where the state decides where money flows and who's worthy and not the matter becomes less of a personal decision.
As I had explained above, Unidian's argument does not rest on the presupposition of a state-possessing society.
That's not an answer to my point. If there would be no "state-possessing" society the implied claim or call for help returns to the smaller surrounding communities of family and friends or religious institutions. This always has been the case and if lucky someone decided to support (for whatever reason).
My point was that this 'demand' is always there implicit in the fact that someone doesn't work while he could in theory. No matter which psychological theory would explain the behavior as disorder of some kind. The non-worker, assuming he has half a brain, is quite aware of the demands he puts on his benefactors
independent of their form, family, friends or strangers like the State.
vicdan wrote:
I would take any great thinkers from the past who created their stuff in indolence supported by others' moral obligation to sustain the said indolence.
This would be too easy. But we're still having a conflict about this
moral obligation. This is always there, you see, provided by the morality of the thinker's environment, no matter if it's the morality of the relatives or embedded in some organization like the state.
The morality is not forced upon others, the obligation rises when the situation arises. Unless the morality is not there, and this is what Unidian seems pointing at: that there
should be a morality present in people to provide for those who cannot or will not. All in good measure of course.
