If other improve faster or have more capabilities and wealth is based on it, you set the current elitist society which, even sharing the same world, gives more rights to some people than other and in most cases the less-capable people will have greater needs.
Welth is based on what other members of the society are willing to give to you voluntarily either for free or in exchange for a product or service, so to be succesfull mean to be someone trully usefull for your society (people gives things to you because they value more what you give to them rather than what they are loosing)
If what you want is the same output no matter what imput you give to the society, the you have killed the only incentive to do something rather than nating.
If what I do it gives me the same “output” (wealth, house, car, status, health, etc…) then why would I ever do anything?, because doing something certainlly cost more resources than not doing it, and that is a statement in wich we may agree.
That is why you can’t just say if you need something you automatically have the right to have it, an that sadly apply even to the basic things we need to survive, it is just a matter of inventives.
The only real solution in those cases of people in need is to put our money where our mouth is and help out of our own pocket, but that came at a cost of manifesting and quantifying “how much” (time, money, etc…) we really care about people in needs, wich is awful to our self image if we don’t like what we see ourselves doing.
Would you explain this a little more please?, I dont quite understand the main idea
“If you are more capable and get more things in the end, that is not being equal with me as I would receive less (in this hypotetical case) because of the lulz. This is to try to show the faulty sense”
“You should lose (wanting or not) in order to fit my needs too. In the opposite case, you should not be part of the society”
Lets say we both live in that society, one in woch that statement is morally true, then
¿What would keep me from “needing more” and think: "no need to provide to myself, society will do it for me?
“certainly, an utilitarianist justification (you consider something good or wrong based on the relationship between the benefits and detriments to you).”
What we are discussing is at the core utulitarist (of not we would be discussing moral values that cant be really discussed, you either accept a moral sistem or not, at the second you start to explain “why someone should accept the moral sistem X” you are making an utilitarist point.
Whay I’m trying to explore are the consecuences of adopting one moral sistem over other, for example:
What would be the incentives withing a moral sistem that states that you have the right to have something if you need that (even if you need to take it from other).
I think that since the concept of need is a very foggy and subjetive ond plus the nature of our mind tends to find a way to unconciously rationalize almost anything we see as beneficial for us (see stanley milgram experiments on obedience to authority), unther such moral sistem the outcome is a constamt war to show that I need more than you, and the better at that game will be benefit more at the expnse of the people that is capable of “not need anything” to put it simple.
I am not sure if you understand what is utilitarianism at all. The issue here is that your idea is completely based on the “incentives” and not solving the real problem behind between the people and I try to show you that based in your consequential POV.
I am not sure what is your source to set the “needs” as artificial or subjective but as far I know in real experience, these can be measured perfectly. In a system where any human is not capable to fit their needs (even between theirselves) humanity doesn’t exist directly. Or maybe you are just using the word “needs” to any wish (artificial need) and not to the direct ones (which allow a human to exist at least and develop itself in equal conditions as minimum).
In addition, I am not sure if you understand what I say at all. This seems completely more and more mixed in every reply and even obscured.
If other improve faster or have more capabilities and wealth is based on it, you set the current elitist society which, even sharing the same world, gives more rights to some people than other and in most cases the less-capable people will have greater needs.
I set cooperation instead of competition.
Welth is based on what other members of the society are willing to give to you voluntarily either for free or in exchange for a product or service, so to be succesfull mean to be someone trully usefull for your society (people gives things to you because they value more what you give to them rather than what they are loosing)
If what you want is the same output no matter what imput you give to the society, the you have killed the only incentive to do something rather than nating.
If what I do it gives me the same “output” (wealth, house, car, status, health, etc…) then why would I ever do anything?, because doing something certainlly cost more resources than not doing it, and that is a statement in wich we may agree.
That is why you can’t just say if you need something you automatically have the right to have it, an that sadly apply even to the basic things we need to survive, it is just a matter of inventives. The only real solution in those cases of people in need is to put our money where our mouth is and help out of our own pocket, but that came at a cost of manifesting and quantifying “how much” (time, money, etc…) we really care about people in needs, wich is awful to our self image if we don’t like what we see ourselves doing.
I don’t agree with this point. That is leaving the things to the casuality.
If you are more capable and get more things in the end, that is not being equal with me as I would receive less (in this hypotetical case).
You should lose (wanting or not) in order to fit my needs too. In the opposite case, you should not be part of the society.
The same would apply if I was the person with advantages. That idea is pretty close to the social darwinism if not the same.
Human rights is based on our interests to ourselves if you remember.
Would you explain this a little more please?, I dont quite understand the main idea
“If you are more capable and get more things in the end, that is not being equal with me as I would receive less (in this hypotetical case) because of the lulz. This is to try to show the faulty sense”
“You should lose (wanting or not) in order to fit my needs too. In the opposite case, you should not be part of the society”
Lets say we both live in that society, one in woch that statement is morally true, then ¿What would keep me from “needing more” and think: "no need to provide to myself, society will do it for me?
“certainly, an utilitarianist justification (you consider something good or wrong based on the relationship between the benefits and detriments to you).”
What we are discussing is at the core utulitarist (of not we would be discussing moral values that cant be really discussed, you either accept a moral sistem or not, at the second you start to explain “why someone should accept the moral sistem X” you are making an utilitarist point.
Whay I’m trying to explore are the consecuences of adopting one moral sistem over other, for example:
What would be the incentives withing a moral sistem that states that you have the right to have something if you need that (even if you need to take it from other). I think that since the concept of need is a very foggy and subjetive ond plus the nature of our mind tends to find a way to unconciously rationalize almost anything we see as beneficial for us (see stanley milgram experiments on obedience to authority), unther such moral sistem the outcome is a constamt war to show that I need more than you, and the better at that game will be benefit more at the expnse of the people that is capable of “not need anything” to put it simple.
I am not sure if you understand what is utilitarianism at all. The issue here is that your idea is completely based on the “incentives” and not solving the real problem behind between the people and I try to show you that based in your consequential POV.
I am not sure what is your source to set the “needs” as artificial or subjective but as far I know in real experience, these can be measured perfectly. In a system where any human is not capable to fit their needs (even between theirselves) humanity doesn’t exist directly. Or maybe you are just using the word “needs” to any wish (artificial need) and not to the direct ones (which allow a human to exist at least and develop itself in equal conditions as minimum).
In addition, I am not sure if you understand what I say at all. This seems completely more and more mixed in every reply and even obscured.
“not solving the real problem behind between the people and I try to show you that based in your consequential POV.”
To make it less obscure and mixed, first:
what is the real problem you refer to?
“even in real experience, these can be measured perfectly”
Second:
How do you measure that?