The existence of human rights logically necessitates that UBI should be a thing

[wishIwasSalludon]

This isn't me saying I support universal basic income, but rather I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency in western society.

In all western countries life is universally considered a human right

But life doesn't exist on its own life is dependent on things

To live you need things like food, water, shelter etc

Your mental health is as important to life as well, so you could also say life is dependent on some degree of happiness as well

So if life is a right doesn't that logically mean that you have a right to the things life requires?

tell me where this argument goes wrong?

@imontheloose

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

0

 

[imontheloose]

It’s fine. But necessary for X doesn’t imply right to Y. You could extrapolate that to free gym memberships or unlimited friendships. Logically, the fact Y causally supports X doesn’t create an enforceable claim to Y.

States generally just guarantee prevention from serious mental degradation (I’m talking torture and arbitrary detention for example), not each citizen’s subjective happiness.

The logic chain is valid to me from your assumptions, at least.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

It’s fine. But necessary for X doesn’t imply right to Y. You could extrapolate that to free gym memberships or unlimited friendships. Logically, the fact Y causally supports X doesn’t create an enforceable claim to Y.

mental health is more nebulous than the other things Ive mentioned

thats why I said "to some degree"

and thats why as you said you could extrapolate it to free gym memberships

we do know that you need food to survive for example regardless of who you are

 

[imontheloose]

mental health is more nebulous than the other things Ive mentioned

thats why I said "to some degree"

and thats why as you said you could extrapolate it to free gym memberships

we do know that you need food to survive for example regardless of who you are

True. Human rights accept this premise; it’s just they leave the delivery vehicle open and tie it to feasibility.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

It’s fine. But necessary for X doesn’t imply right to Y. You could extrapolate that to free gym memberships or unlimited friendships. Logically, the fact Y causally supports X doesn’t create an enforceable claim to Y.

States generally just guarantee prevention from serious mental degradation (I’m talking torture and arbitrary detention for example), not each citizen’s subjective happiness.

The logic chain is valid to me from your assumptions, at least.

honestly I could easily see in the near future where they do some sort of brain scan on you and then they know just what to do to not make you kill yourself or something

the thing about this is were not even far off from it

I always keep up with the latest technological break throughs, its genuinely insane the things people are working on

Id go as far as to say we are living in the most interesting time in human history

and lets not even get into what the government has

government tech is usually 30-40 years ahead of what the general public has access too

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

True. Human rights accept this premise; it’s just they leave the delivery vehicle open and tie it to feasibility.

Idk how it is in Europe but in America this premise is far from accepted

people debate about whether we should try to end homelessness

or if universal healthcare should be a thing

 

[134applesauce456]

they technically do help you with welfare and shit

atleast in the US

 

[Klasik616]

This isn't me saying I support universal basic income, but rather I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency in western society.

In all western countries life is universally considered a human right

But life doesn't exist on its own life is dependent on things

To live you need things like food, water, shelter etc

Your mental health is as important to life as well, so you could also say life is dependent on some degree of happiness as well

So if life is a right doesn't that logically mean that you have a right to the things life requires?

tell me where this argument goes wrong?

@imontheloose

Philosophy is not a remedy for economic problems, discussions like this were always a cope. We all know this, only liberal leftists try to ignore it and rightwingers accept the conditions of the game. Communism fight all debates and only focus on establishing public property because they know human rights are not real.

 

[Dirlewanger333]

Consent is a human right, not life

 

[Archimedes]

You have a negative right not to be killed, which simply means you have the right to try and live without anyone impeding you. Even if they say "right to life," it in application is not. That would mean its an obligation for the state to keep you alive which certainly isnt the case in most countries.

 

[2025cel]

Negros be crying ova mental health

snow piggy problems

 

[Incelforeever]

Human rights is a joke and low iq

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Consent is a human right, not life

In order to consent to something you need to be alive

so it follows that life is a human right

You have a negative right not to be killed, which simply means you have the right to try and live without anyone impeding you.

I guess you could say this but the problem with it is its completely arbitrary

why does it matter if its a person impeding you versus nature impeding your life?

any reason you can give is entirely arbitrary

the only solution is if you acknowledge morality itself is arbitrary

which is true but thats a route that many wont want to go down

 

[Dirlewanger333]

In order to consent to something you need to be alive

so it follows that life is a human right

By this, I could say that you can’t interact with anything that isn’t life because it’s non consenting matter. Consent means the ability try to do anything while maintaining consent between humans, not to be a god without natural constraints

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Consent means the ability try to do anything while maintaining consent between humans

I dont think you understand what I mean

you need to be alive to be able to do this

 

[imontheloose]

Idk how it is in Europe but in America this premise is far from accepted

people debate about whether we should try to end homelessness

or if universal healthcare should be a thing

Europe is infamously much kinder in that sense.

 

[Debetro]

People need to work

 

[Dirlewanger333]

I dont think you understand what I mean

you need to be alive to be able to do this

Only living humans may consent. I don’t see why you think this is contradictory to consent being a human right. You may lose the ability to consent by the fault of yourself (e.g suicide). Living isn’t a human right. Consent pertains to human interaction. Consent is not required for natural pressures. Someone may do what they will with their body. They may try to live or die. The consequences they face by their actions is entirely their fault.

 

[Archimedes]

In order to consent to something you need to be alive

so it follows that life is a human right

I guess you could say this but the problem with it is its completely arbitrary

why does it matter if its a person impeding you versus nature impeding your life?

any reason you can give is entirely arbitrary

the only solution is if you acknowledge morality itself is arbitrary

which is true but thats a route that many wont want to go down

Morality exists only in the sense of members in a community acting in a way that is beneficial to that community. As a corollary, it only exists between conscious beings with an ability to form a social contract with us. I don't believe in objective morality (or more accurately universal morality), but its not arbitrary either. Nations evolved as an extension of this cooperation.

In what way would nature impede your life, where human intervention could help? If you get a disease or something? I think the problem becomes where the help is coming from, universal healthcare for instance necessitates you and I pay increased taxes so that some obese guy who knowingly made himself extreme unhealthy can get a heart transplant or whatever. At some point, the help becomes detrimental to other people in the nation, at which point the state isn't doing its job.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

The consequences they face by their actions is entirely their fault.

You could think of an able bodied person who refuses to get a job and then they die of hunger to be the same as a suicide in the sense that they consented to the consequences of what happened

I think I misunderstood what you were saying at first, yea what your saying makes sense

Living isn’t a human right.

I think you misunderstood the point of this post, the point I was trying to make is that there is a logical inconsistency in the general understanding of human rights in the west

The consensus in the west is that living is a human right, what Im doing is finding out what this idea logically entails. Im not actually saying living is a human right

do you get what I mean?

 

[Dirlewanger333]

You could think of an able bodied person who refuses to get a job and then they die of hunger to be the same as a suicide in the sense that they consented to the consequences of what happened

Living must be justified through making a large enough profit to cover expenses which is the fault of the person

I think you misunderstood the point of this post, the point I was trying to make is that there is a logical inconsistency in the general understanding of human rights in the west

The consensus in the west is that living is a human right, what Im doing is finding out what this idea logically entails. Im not actually saying living is a human right

I don’t think any documents state living is a human right