Oh, I agree that civilized societies require certain rules of interaction, widely if not universally understood and followed, in order to function. I also agree that while those rules vary somewhat from society to society, there is a considerable amount of overlap among them. But their origins are pragmatic, not "spiritual," and though I don't know what this "Axial Age ethic" prescribes, I doubt it correlates well with pragmatic, rationally defensible and empirically testable rules.Belindi wrote: ↑January 12th, 2022, 8:41 am
The story of man's past may be viewed as a necessary process of development from tribal to universal ethics. For instance the Fertile Crescent (and settled farming generally) was not only physical geography it was also an economic unit in the sense that it led to surplus production of goods by men . Surplus production leads to trade which would be impossible but for the basic ethic that underwrites mutual trust.
Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
An emotive myth is connoted with the ethic. Mandela is already a myth, i.e. an iconic figure who stands for equality and freedom among all men.GE Morton wrote: ↑January 12th, 2022, 7:46 pmOh, I agree that civilized societies require certain rules of interaction, widely if not universally understood and followed, in order to function. I also agree that while those rules vary somewhat from society to society, there is a considerable amount of overlap among them. But their origins are pragmatic, not "spiritual," and though I don't know what this "Axial Age ethic" prescribes, I doubt it correlates well with pragmatic, rationally defensible and empirically testable rules.Belindi wrote: ↑January 12th, 2022, 8:41 am
The story of man's past may be viewed as a necessary process of development from tribal to universal ethics. For instance the Fertile Crescent (and settled farming generally) was not only physical geography it was also an economic unit in the sense that it led to surplus production of goods by men . Surplus production leads to trade which would be impossible but for the basic ethic that underwrites mutual trust.
The Axial Age is statistically true as to datelines for significant ethical change. The AA correlation with economic change such as settled farming is hypothetical. I fancy that e.g. the OT Prophets' dates correlated with the founding of the stone and mortar Temple instead of the portable Arc of the Covenant. But that is my own uninformed hypothesis. Maybe I will Google it.
Wikipedia has it there is a correlation between Axial Age thinking and the rise of markets and coinage.
David Christian notes that the first "universal religions" appeared in the age of the first universal empires and of the first all-encompassing trading networks.[26]
Anthropologist David Graeber has pointed out that "the core period of Jasper's Axial age ... corresponds almost exactly to the period in which coinage was invented. What's more, the three parts of the world where coins were first invented were also the very parts of the world where those sages lived; in fact, they became the epicenters of Axial Age religious and philosophical creativity."[27] Drawing on the work of classicist Richard Seaford and literary theorist Marc Shell on the relation between coinage and early Greek thought, Graeber argues that an understanding of the rise of markets is necessary to grasp the context in which the religious and philosophical insights of the Axial age arose. The ultimate effect of the introduction of coinage was, he argues, an "ideal division of spheres of human activity that endures to this day: on the one hand the market, on the other, religion".[28]
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
GE can you remind me what your definition of ''an agent within the moral field'' is in your theory?GE Morton wrote: ↑January 7th, 2022, 10:09 pmOnly the Equal Agency postulate follows from the the foundation ("Fundamental Principle"), because the latter aims to advance the welfare of all agents. The others are free-standing and independently verifiable, logically or empirically. Which one(s) would you reject or question? Here are the ones I mentioned:Gertie wrote: ↑January 4th, 2022, 3:06 pm
Looking back I don't see how my arguments can move you as long as you're welded to the package of postulates you've arrived at, and I don't agree that they have to follow from the foundation which we do agree on. And while individual idiosyncrasies should be allowed for, there are morally significant differences between some needs/desires than others, even if they aren't objectively quantifiable. And imo it's better to imperfectly wrestle with the messiness, than create tidy theoretical lines.
* Equal Agency postulate: All agents in the moral field have equal moral standing, which means that all are equally subject to whatever duties and constraints the theory generates, and the well-being of each has equal weight. There are no preferred classes or agents.
* Neutrality Postulate (corrollary of Equal Agency Postulate): The theory is neutral with respect to agent interests, and the interests of all agents have equal weight (since the well-being of an agent consists in satisfaction of his interests).
* Relativity postulate: What counts as a "good" or an "evil," and the values (positive or negative) thereof, are subjective and relative to agents.
* Postulate of Individuality: What are counted as "goods" and "evils" differs from agent to agent.
Again, which would you challenge or question? Note that if you accept the Equal Agency, Relativity, and Individuality postulates, you're logically forced to accept the Neutrality postulate (which is why it's a corrollary).
That is probably true for most people, but is it necessarily true for everyone? Anyone who has actually worked with the homeless would tell you that some of them live on the streets by choice, refuse shelter accomodations, and if offered a choice between an apartment and an ice cream cone --- or a dose of their drug of choice --- would take the drug, and even the ice cream.So if we take homelessness, nearly everybody would feel that having a home is more important to their welfare and ability to flourish, than being able to have their favourite flavour of ice cream, as an obvious comparison.
But how important a given good is to a given agent doesn't help us with the moral question, which is, May Alfie be forced to sacrifice something he deems a good, and is thus a contributor to his welfare, in order to provide Bruno with something Bruno deems a good? Given that there is no objective measure of value per which goods defined by different people can be compared, how is that forcing to be justified?
That is probably true too. But remember the issue is not how people feel, or even whether there is some (rationally defensible) moral obligation to save the drowning child (as I think there is), but whether one agent may force another agent to do so.Nobody feels a moral obligation to ensure everybody is able to have their fave ice cream based on welfare and flourishing, and nearly everybody feels there is a moral obligation to to sacrifice their shoes to save a drowning child.
Why do you suppose it is insufficient? Can we assume that it is because, for many people, the well-being of their own kids outweighs, in their own value hierarchies, the welfare of strangers? That it may be more important to them to continue their kid's piano lessons than to donate that amount to a charity which will provide a meal and a cot for a homeless addict? And possibly also because they do not consider many of the homeless to be innocent victims, but victims of their own poor choices and bad habits? If that is the case, does it not have a bearing on one's moral obligations to them?Being homeless will likely affect your physical and mental health, your ability to find and maintain a decent income, may lead to crime, addiction, sex work, and being preyed upon by criminals. Having your kids taken into care, and/or your kids' life chances being harmed. This seems like an obvious case for moral obligation to me.
And if we're serious about it, leaving it to ad hoc acts of charity/generosity is insufficient, we know that.
Not everyone forced to pay that tax would consider its impact "minimal." The trouble with imposing taxes to "solve" these problems is that they are indiscriminate, taking no account either of the highly variable and individualized burdens they impose on different taxpayers, or on the personal circumstances and culpabilities of the designated beneficiaries. And, of course, because they force the decisions of a few upon the many, thereby denying the latter the prerogative of making those evaluations and reaching those judgments for themselves, egregiously violate the Equal Agency postulate.So the only objection I see to using taxes, is some in principle objection to ever being forcibly obliged to sacrifice to help another. But if our foundation is welfare based, my sacrifice of a bit more in taxes has a minimal effect on my welfare, and a radical effect on homeless people.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
Laws like this effectively criminalize homelessness. Fining or jailing the homeless doesn't solve their problem or make society better off. This law will compound rather than solving the problem of homelessness. These tactics may result in the loss of employment for the homeless or increased difficulty in finding a job if they have a criminal record (for sleeping!).
What these folks need is a safe place to sleep along with treatment for substance abuse or mental health problems and educational and job training opportunities. The answer instead from the Florida legislature amounts to "Let them eat cake".
- Lagayscienza
- Posts: 1843
- Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
- Location: Antipodes
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
And slowing immigration until stocks are up. You can loosen regulations all you like but, with high levels of immigration, homelessness can only increase.
Also, beware of loosening regulations too much. Previously people have been allowed to build on known flood plains and bushfire hotspots. Also, we don't want to end up with tofu-dreg construction, at risk of falling at any time (as seen in newer high-rise residential buildings failing in Sydney).
And of course homelessness is not a crime, it's a personal catastrophe.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
- Samana Johann
- Posts: 313
- Joined: June 28th, 2022, 7:57 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
- Samana Johann
- Posts: 313
- Joined: June 28th, 2022, 7:57 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
I think this goes back to racism, which still haunts us in many ways. Here is a famous quote from Lee Atwater, a key member of the Reagan white house:
They convinced overt and closet racists that theirs was the party of the white man, so that they could get elected to pursue the interests of the rich man. The line they could not cross has moved over time. Now, they can't have open segregation or redlining, but they can have zoning laws that tend to achieve the same ends. Requiring that houses be over a certain square footage is wasteful and not really in the best interest of society. However, it keeps out the poor and thus often keeps out the blacks.You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni**er, ni**er.”
Housing is really only built these days in the interests of the wealthy. We build Mcmansions and mid to high end apartments, which are dwellings or rentals for the wealthy. However, it is very rare that we build new "starter" homes for the working poor to break out of the rent cycle. Some people fall through the cracks and end up in public housing or on the streets. We have the menas to build affordable housing, but not the will, since this would go against the interests of the wealthy who are pulling the strings.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
Some years ago, our UK government permitted building on flood plains. Now — surprise! (not) — the owners of those houses can't get insurance, because the risk of flooding is very high. What did we expect, when we allowed building on flood plains?
As you say, this is government idiocy at its 'finest'.
"Who cares, wins"
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
Alas homelessness is quite variable city to city (due to the aforementioned variability of housing costs) yet immigration policies are national.Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 31st, 2024, 1:40 amAnd slowing immigration until stocks are up. You can loosen regulations all you like but, with high levels of immigration, homelessness can only increase.
Also, beware of loosening regulations too much. Previously people have been allowed to build on known flood plains and bushfire hotspots. Also, we don't want to end up with tofu-dreg construction, at risk of falling at any time (as seen in newer high-rise residential buildings failing in Sydney).
And of course homelessness is not a crime, it's a personal catastrophe.
Where I live, building permitting is well known for being extremely costly, slow and labyrinthian. Just reducing those to "normal" levels would be greeted by developers and builders as a miracle.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
In cities with not enough housing, it is not required to build only at the lowest end to relieve housing costs. The reason is that every large urban area already contains housing units all along the housing continuum. The problem is that what most would describe as "low end" housing commands medium rent (due to the shortage) thus the lost cost renters are forced out of the market, by those who can afford medium rent occupying what should be low end housing. Building at the medium or even the high end, increases the total inventory such that medium cost renters can be housed in the medium range, freeing up low end units for those at the low end.chewybrian wrote: ↑January 31st, 2024, 10:19 amI think this goes back to racism, which still haunts us in many ways. Here is a famous quote from Lee Atwater, a key member of the Reagan white house:
They convinced overt and closet racists that theirs was the party of the white man, so that they could get elected to pursue the interests of the rich man. The line they could not cross has moved over time. Now, they can't have open segregation or redlining, but they can have zoning laws that tend to achieve the same ends. Requiring that houses be over a certain square footage is wasteful and not really in the best interest of society. However, it keeps out the poor and thus often keeps out the blacks.You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni**er, ni**er.”
Housing is really only built these days in the interests of the wealthy. We build Mcmansions and mid to high end apartments, which are dwellings or rentals for the wealthy. However, it is very rare that we build new "starter" homes for the working poor to break out of the rent cycle. Some people fall through the cracks and end up in public housing or on the streets. We have the menas to build affordable housing, but not the will, since this would go against the interests of the wealthy who are pulling the strings.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?
Although I am focused on houses for purchase, your point is valid in terms of rentals. I want to see practical homes available and affordable for purchase by the working poor. If they only get hand me down homes to buy, they have to try to work with 3,000 square foot homes in the suburbs, away from public transportation, unaffordable for them to heat and maintain. The free market does many good things for us, but it clearly can't or won't build the homes these people need. We need some relaxed zoning laws and perhaps some loan guarantees or tax breaks from the government to make the prospect appealing to the builders and bankers.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 31st, 2024, 12:58 pm In cities with not enough housing, it is not required to build only at the lowest end to relieve housing costs. The reason is that every large urban area already contains housing units all along the housing continuum. The problem is that what most would describe as "low end" housing commands medium rent (due to the shortage) thus the lost cost renters are forced out of the market, by those who can afford medium rent occupying what should be low end housing. Building at the medium or even the high end, increases the total inventory such that medium cost renters can be housed in the medium range, freeing up low end units for those at the low end.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023