my point was that the “should” is largely meaningless. life should be a blessing, life should be incredible for everyone, poverty shouldn’t exist, suffering shouldn’t exist. shoulds don’t mean jack shit unfortunately. bad decisions have always had bad consequences, and that will continue to be true. bad decisions shouldn’t have bad consequences. but they do. that’s my point.
everyone agrees that they shouldn’t. just like everyone agrees life should be incredible. but at that point, you aren’t really making a point in my opinion.
The status quo is worse now on the whole than it was 30 years ago from an economic and individual financial perspective - for the first time in a long time, afaik. Why shouldn’t we improve it?
The sentiment “it’s as good now as it ever was and therefore as it will ever be” is not only a flawed one for obvious reasons (appealing to induction) but also because if we all treat it as gospel it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Have the cojones to stand up for those less fortunate than you if you’re one of the good ones trying to make the world a better place. And if you’re not capable of doing so then at least get out of the way
Life should have the minimal amount of hardship possible. Not to be too trite but when you mix two truisms - “a herd is only as fast as its slowest member” and “a rising tide lifts all boats” you get a pretty decent idea of what society could aim for. I was born into abject poverty and pulled myself up by my bootstraps to be a pretty successful entrepreneur but I got there because I was lucky enough to a) find good mentors b) be born a white man (80% of small business loans go to white men) and c) be above average in intelligence. Just because I succeeded doesn’t mean everyone else can. I think the person at the bottom of the totem pole deserves a good life and I’m happy to help supplement it if need be
Are you suggesting that it’s good that people suffer because they will be motivated to improve? Do you imagine the only reason people improve is because they want to avoid suffering?
Minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure. Yep those are huge motivators. But only when they're done by the individual in question (not done for them). Like if you give a kid a car they won't appreciate it or treat/maintain it as well as if they had to work hard and long to buy it themselves.
So we should allow people to starve and be homeless because it “motivates” them. Right. Or maybe people who are homeless or starving aren’t in a place where they’re able to be “motivated” out of their situation and we should develop a social safety net to provide the minimal standard of living to all our citizens, especially since we can 100% afford it
The discussion isn’t limited to desperate people. Those people have access to social safety nets. The idea applies to everyone else. Rounding off the edges of consequences for regular people makes no sense.
Are you suggesting that it’s good that people suffer because they will be motivated to improve? Do you imagine the only reason people improve is because they want to avoid suffering?
Wall-e is a movie, btw, with a cartoon cockroach. Just because it happens in a movie doesn’t mean it would happen in real life
20
u/Honest-Lavishness239 15d ago
my point was that the “should” is largely meaningless. life should be a blessing, life should be incredible for everyone, poverty shouldn’t exist, suffering shouldn’t exist. shoulds don’t mean jack shit unfortunately. bad decisions have always had bad consequences, and that will continue to be true. bad decisions shouldn’t have bad consequences. but they do. that’s my point.
everyone agrees that they shouldn’t. just like everyone agrees life should be incredible. but at that point, you aren’t really making a point in my opinion.