Not everyone deserves a good standard of living. amirite?

>I don't understand why we accept that unquestioningly. For much of world history, most people lived in houses and flats with ten people to a room, for much of history, people ate what they could afford, without complaining. For much of history, if you couldn't afford medicine, you didn't get it. Yeah, because peasant revolts from poor living conditions never happened until recently.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

appeal to antiquity is a logical fallacy for a reason. 'it's been that way' is not an argument for something, it doesn't suggest there's any benefit from that thing beyond maybe 'it won't kill you before you can reproduce'. all humans have a hierarchy of needs, with basics at the foundation-- everyone deserves to be able to self-actualize, and their ability to do so ultimately benefits the rest of human society. the more capable everyone is... the more they can do, ipso facto. the more people can do, the more everyone benefits. there's not a lack of resources; there's an issue with the distribution thereof.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

What a bizarre take

by Anonymous 1 year ago

In the past, they did not have the technology we have today. We can afford to give everyone a good standard of living. Why should we not strive for that? Just because people in the past didn't have it? That doesn't make any sense. In the past child mortality was extremely high, does that mean we should start doing things to raise it? There is a reason those things are in the past. We are better now and can afford to no longer stuff people into houses or have large portions of the population starve. Saying not everyone deserves makes it sound like you think some people do and some people don't. Id be very curious on how you decide who does or doesn't deserve a good standard of living.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I had lost hope, but in that last paragraph, you did understand. We have made our standards of living so high that making sure everyone can afford that has become nigh impossible. We could give everyone bread, butter and slices of meat. But instead you go to the shops and find countless expensive ready meals and sugar filled cereals. Each requiring factory line ups, extra transport costs and importing of fresh produce. We could provide everyone with a room for themselves to stay in. But instead we build fancy hotels, golf courses and huge shopping malls (although thank god those are going away). *Everyone* could have a decent standard of living. But instead, few get a lavish luxury lifestyle whilst the rest live in poverty

by Anonymous 1 year ago

>For much of world history, most people lived in houses and flats with ten people to a room, for much of history, people ate what they could afford, without complaining. Peasants in history never complained about their living standards? Are you sure? There's plenty of examples of peasants/slaves/working class doing a whole hell of a lot more than just complaining about it. If it only ever rose to the level of complaints, human history would be way less bloody than it actually is.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Meh. Your assertion is off. For instance, there's enough land to give everyone in the world a place to have a home. Cost of living, irrelevant.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

How's the republican party's boot taste?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I just know you never had to figth for a plate or a roof over your head.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I agree to the point, sort of disagree to the explanation? Not everyone deserve a good standard of living because not everyone works hard enough to deserve it. I believe that people who provides value to society should have a standard of living similar to their output. The more value, the higher standard of living No value, shouldn't have any expectations of living standards What is this "value" then? That changes with the times I suppose.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

>Obviously, if we had the resources to, it would be great to give everyone everything, but practically, we can't afford to give everyone these things So what is your argument? Is it that people don't intrinsically deserve these things, or that its not practical to give everyone these things? Your argument seems confused.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I'd be curious if you support ending all cancer research as well. Society has managed to keep chugging along despite its existence, some suffer because of it but they don't suffer their entire lives. It also doesn't affect an entire population. Those affected by cancer are still able to form relationships, experience happiness and live shortened, but still fulfilling lives. One could argue that money put into cancer research could be better used elsewhere. Sure it could be nice if we could find a cure for cancer, but that's just the way it is.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

You are one of them.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

"Obviously, if we had the resources to, it would be great to give everyone everything..." We do...

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Amazingly beautifully written. Cheers to you fine writer because everything was SPOT ON.

by Anonymous 1 year ago