SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (5206)1/7/2017 6:23:05 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 367481
 
>The idea of helping the poor should always include a consideration of how the common good will be served. Should poor people benefitting from public welfare be obligated to return value to society? The ethical answer is yes, to the extent they become able to return value to society.<

>>>I think that's a big off. Taking welfare and then trying to pay it back with something of value is not the same as not taking welfare unless you can't work. Seems to me that if you can't work, you don't need to pay it back. If you can work, then you should, in which case payback is moot.<<<

I don't think it is off at all. We are at our core a socially constructed society. In that sense alone we have a universal obligation to the well being of all. One to all and all to one. What ever other 'system' we bring to the table still has that underlying nag.

I wasn't thinking of cash payback at all, although I don't consider the idea completely out of the question. Being enabled to go to work, for some, would be an example of returning value to society. What else: Community Service, volunteering, intelligent contributions, other. From among the many diverse types society should benefit. Even among the most helpless there are ways society can benefit, like being able to include them in research (within limits that don't violate them).



To: Lane3 who wrote (5206)1/7/2017 6:32:53 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 367481
 
>>> It seems to me that that sense of duty has eroded, along with the cultural norms that support it. Again, this observation applies generally, across our society. But taking the specific case of the working class, its implications are important: Significantly strengthening the cultural norms that if you can work, you should be working, even if the only job you can find pays a mere 65 percent of what you made in your last job; that if you can work, you should be working, even if you have to move a few states away for a good job; that if you can work, you should be providing for your kids; that you have an obligation to contribute and to add your skills and talent and effort to the fabric of your community — a strong recovery of these basic cultural norms would go a long way toward helping the working class lead full and flourishing lives.

How? It used to be the case that an able-bodied man who wasn’t working would feel much more social stigma than he does today. And stigma can push men on the margin into jobs. Once employed, it is much easier for those men to meet their obligations and fulfill their duties: to be good fathers to their children, to be good members of their communities, to put down the video game and not to use drugs. A virtuous cycle is created, in which adherence to duty, self-mastery and proper choices in each aspect of life reinforces duty, self-mastery and proper choices in the others. And the ensuing benefits to children and community are obvious
.<<<

I remember and lived under that social stigma. Every man suffered to some extent at their failure to rise to the cream jobs. I can't help but notice the article being male centric. Old guys like me might still be influenced by that stigma. When the discussion turns to men striving to improve their lot (as a characteristic of manhood), another counter perspective often surfaces which refers to something 'called the war on women.' Modern men do not want to be caught participating in the new stigmatizing role.

Culture has changed and especially among the young there is much less sense of obligation. Should we be that surprised?