[Sdiff]

(Original post by Carecup)
And we all know how that turned out.

a) Irrelevant to this thread
b) Yes, lots of products and wealth was created and people's standard of living increased

[Martyn*]

Proponents of the welfare state, for the most part, insist that the welfare state is good, altruistic and compassionate; anybody against it is simply greedy.

I do not think that this is the opinion of the majority of people. The welfare state is necessary to protect the poor from destitution and starvation. It is good because it protects the most vulnerable. One does not support the welfare state because of greed because money and status is not the defining factor: the defining factor is to avoid starvation. That is why they support it.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Did you even read my OP? If you did you'd realise this has nothing to do with my argument. Namely that welfare state is supported because of greed/selfishness and not compassionate, You have done nothing to refute this.

I was supporting the argument of silent ninja that the reason we provide welfare to those in our own country and not those in other countries is because of the British tax system and defending him when you said that those who receive welfare don't pay into the British tax system.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Proponents of the welfare state, for the most part, insist that the welfare state is good, altruistic and compassionate; anybody against it is simply greedy.

I do not think that this is the opinion of the majority of people. The welfare state is necessary to protect the poor from destitution and starvation. It is good because it protects the most vulnerable. One does not support the welfare state because of greed because money and status is not the defining factor: the defining factor is to avoid starvation. That is why they support it.

And here is the fallacy. This is the whole point of my OP.

-Why are people withput income in Britaon/Europe entitled to a welfare state, while those in Africa are entitled to at best charity
-What you mentioned is still selfishness.

Did you even read my OP? It seems to have went over your head completely. Read it again, I have addressed your point.

As well as that, the part of my post you quoted is referring to those who are net co tributors while you are referring to net recipients.

[jacketpotato]

The welfare state isn't just about supporting poor people. It is also about ensuring that people who do have money live in a happy, peaceful and fair society. If you look at the research unequal societies tend to be unhappy, fearful and have high crime rates.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Sdiff)
And here is the fallacy. This is the whole point of my OP.

-Why are people withput income in Britaon/Europe entitled to a welfare state, while those in Africa are entitled to at best charity
-What you mentioned is still selfishness.

Did you even read my OP? It seems to have went over your head completely. Read it again, I have addressed your point.

As well as that, the part of my post you quoted is referring to those who are net co tributors while you are referring to net recipients.

In a world socialist society they would be entitled, but because we are not living in that world, they are not entitled. The fallacy consists in equating the prevailing economic system - which is capitalistic and plutocratic - with a system not classified by national boundaries, like world socialism. In a world socialist system, everyone not working would be entitled to welfare from one centralised government.

I think that you have a short-sighted view of selfishness. It isn't selfish to avoid starvation. And people accept welfare to avoid starvation not because they agree with it; they simply have no choice when the chips are down.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by jacketpotato)
The welfare state isn't just about supporting poor people. It is also about ensuring that people who do have money live in a happy, peaceful and fair society. If you look at the research unequal societies tend to be unhappy, fearful and have high crime rates.

So my point is validated.

[Annoying-Mouse]

Compassionate = Feeling or showing sympathy and concern for others
Proponents of the welfare support it due to their lack of desire to see people starving/without a home
Ergo, are compassionate.

No ifs not buts. We can't ensure that everyone avoids starvation and lead a happy life ergo we only focus on the people who we can help and if there's enough money also help others in the world (i.e. foreign aid) or medical research which benefits everyone worldwide.

[Josh93]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Not necessarily true. I would argue that giving food to people who would otherwise starve represents a much higher utility to the recipients than, say, a flatscreen TV for somebody on welfare.


So in other words, you want a feel good factor from your money. You want everything around you to seem fine and dandy. That is undoubtedly a selfish reason.



But of course it is selfish. The key is "your local environment". In other words, places that you encounter on a daily basis.

* Granted, but that would not be the case if we put our money in a pot and spread it without prejudice as you suggested earlier.


* Certainly it serves your self interest more than the money being spent in an area where you cannot see the impact but it serves your self interest less than having no welfare state at all would, therefore I contest that it is not selfish.
Also, many net contributors to the state come from areas which are far removed (e.g affluent country villages) from the areas in which their money is being spent, for them there is arguably little to no more personal benefit than there would be if the money went overseas.

* Ok, let's say I earn £60,000 and pay 40% tax on £20,000 of that. Are you suggesting that I could not achieve a greater improvement to my local environment or personal wellbeing by investing that £8,000 per year in my local environment myself rather than submitting it to a government pot which will likely be spent in areas which I do not personally frequent and on causes which I may even be personally opposed to?
Yes of course there is an element of self interest but there is in absolutely everything that we do; my argument is that it serves the individual's self interest less to contribute to the welfare state than it does not to therefore it is not selfish. Would it serve their self interest less to instead have that money spent on arguably more needy causes overseas - almost certainly, so the welfare state is more selfish than this hypothetical alternative, that does not make the welfare state selfish or based on greed it simply places it upon a spectrum.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Compassionate = Feeling or showing sympathy and concern for others
Proponents of the welfare support it due to their lack of desire to see people starving/without a home
Ergo, are compassionate.

No ifs not buts. We can't ensure that everyone avoids starvation and lead a happy life ergo we only focus on the people who we can help and if there's enough money also help others in the world (i.e. foreign aid) or medical research which benefits everyone worldwide.

You haven't addressed the point in my OP. If the welfare state was truly compassionate, then instead of buying plasma tvs and nice houses for people in this country (as well as the basic necessity that is food) and letting Africans starve, we would spread out the wealth equally and give basic neccesities to people in the UK as well as in Africa.

Your stupid point was dealt with in my OP so I really shouldn't have replied given that you obviously didn't read the OP.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Sdiff)
You haven't addressed the point in my OP. If the welfare state was truly compassionate, then instead of buying plasma tvs and nice houses for people in this country (as well as the basic necessity that is food) and letting Africans starve, we would spread out the wealth equally and give basic neccesities to people in the UK as well as in Africa.

Your stupid point was dealt with in my OP so I really shouldn't have replied given that you obviously didn't read the OP.

I don't know anyone who is on benefits that can afford a plasma TV. My dad works part time as well as my mum's benefits and we can't afford one, so stop using that as an argument! It really is necessities and if you save up the pennies left you might be able to get a luxury about once every few months.

We don't give money for the necessities for people in Africa because of the British tax system. As has been said to you several times. Like silent ninja said:

You firstly have to tackle why we have borders and nations. If you disagree with this, please start a thread and explain your reasons.

Until you do this, stop using this 'argument'.
If there was just one world and we all had one collective tax system etc. then yes it would be selfish for us to only help the island that we're on, but that's not how the world works!

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by Sdiff)
(Note that I am not actually arguing for the removal of the welfare state in this thread;merely proving that the welfare state is not based on compassion)

Proponents of the welfare state, for the most part, insist that the welfare state is good, altruistic and compassionate; anybody against it is simply greedy. Do these arguments have any substance behind them? The short answer is no. There is a huge logical fallacy behind them.

First let's make a distinction between two "groups with regards to the welfare state: Those who are net recipients, I.e dependent on the welfare state for a comfortable standard of living, and those who are net contributors, i.e the higher tax payers.

Let's start with the net recipients. It is no mystery why these people support a welfare state. They get money from it and enjoy a comfortable standard of living. For the vast majority of net recipients, they support it because of greed. Greed for a better life and more money. This is relatively plain.

Which brings us to the next category: The net contributors who support the welfare state. They claim that their support of the welfare state is because of compassion for "the poorest, the least fortunate". But herein lies the great fallacy: The poorest and least fortunate in the world live in Africa. Yet most proponents of the welfare state are RELATIVELY apathetic to these people's poverty, and are happy for them to receive only charity. I say relatively not absolutely apathetic, because while they may give to charity, they for the most part do not support the widespread taking of huge amounts of money by the government to pay for a welfare state for these people in Africa. There is a huge hypocrisy here: People who produce nothing in Britain are entitled to a nice welfare state, but people in Africa are entitled to crumbs off the table.

This proves that most proponents of the welfare state do not do so for compassionate reasons but for selfish ones. Example: Less crime, ugly social
problems in their area, insurance etc. So in conclusion, maybe people against the welfare state do have this position because of greed, but then people who support the welfare state also do so because of greed.

You get that the government has a foreign aid budget too right?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Sdiff)
You haven't addressed the point in my OP. If the welfare state was truly compassionate, then instead of buying plasma tvs and nice houses for people in this country (as well as the basic necessity that is food) and letting Africans starve, we would spread out the wealth equally and give basic neccesities to people in the UK as well as in Africa.

Your stupid point was dealt with in my OP so I really shouldn't have replied given that you obviously didn't read the OP.

We can't get basic necessities to people in the UK and Africa. We haven't got the resources to do that. Africa is a continent of 1 Billion, Uk is only 60 Million. We don't give people on benefits plasma TVs or nice houses. We assign houses due to needs. If you're under 35 , you're given allowance equivalent to shared accommodation rates. If someone is on benefits and has plasma TV then chances are they have either paid it over a long period of time e.g. on Argos it's 9 months for products that cost £400+ or something or have had money from relatives/past jobs/savings etc.

As I said, we have foreign aid which gives what we can.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
You get that the government has a foreign aid budget too right?

What an awful argument. What is the foreign aid budget? How much does it help? What is the welfare budget? How many people does it help.

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
We can't get basic necessities to people in the UK and Africa. We haven't got the resources to do that. Africa is a continent of 1 Billion, Uk is only 60 Million. We don't give people on benefits plasma TVs or nice houses. We assign houses due to needs. If you're under 35 , you're given allowance equivalent to shared accommodation rates. If someone is on benefits and has plasma TV then chances are they have either paid it over a long period of time e.g. on Argos it's 9 months for products that cost £400+ or something or have had money from relatives/past jobs/savings etc.

As I said, we have foreign aid which gives what we can.

As I said, If we wanted to be compassionate, we would pick a certain amount of money (depending on how compassionate we want to be) and spread it out evenly across the world. I've dealt with this already.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I don't know anyone who is on benefits that can afford a plasma TV. My dad works part time as well as my mum's benefits and we can't afford one, so stop using that as an argument! It really is necessities and if you save up the pennies left you might be able to get a luxury about once every few months.

You are posting on a computer right now, presumably with high speed internet, correct?

We don't give money for the necessities for people in Africa because of the British tax system. As has been said to you several times. Like silent ninja said:

Until you do this, stop using this 'argument'.
If there was just one world and we all had one collective tax system etc. then yes it would be selfish for us to only help the island that we're on, but that's not how the world works!

So you're saying because you were lucky to have been born within a semi-arbitrary border, you deserve a comfortable life even if you don't work?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Sdiff)
As I said, If we wanted to be compassionate, we would pick a certain amount of money (depending on how compassionate we want to be) and spread it out evenly across the world. I've dealt with this already.

Well then why don't you give your paycheck to African children? You uncompassionate person having a house and lots of food. Bread and water every two days. And rainwater too, don't waste money on paying a water bill, poor kids in Africa.

We can't be 100% altruistic and compassionate without killing ourselves. It isn't selfishness to preserve your own life, and it isn't selfishness for a government to protect it's country - because that's what the government is there for, it's why the country exists. The fact that we already have a foreign aid is compassionate.

If you want everyone to spread all of their money all over the world, you need to be questioning why we have countries and borders, not moaning that our welfare system is selfish.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Sdiff)
You are posting on a computer right now, presumably with high speed internet, correct?

Yes, at university. My internet back at home is pretty slow, and my dad does work to pay for it.

So you're saying because you were lucky to have been born within a semi-arbitrary border, you deserve a comfortable life even if you don't work?

Read above.
And it's barely comfortable

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by Sdiff)
What an awful argument. What is the foreign aid budget? How much does it help? What is the welfare budget? How many people does it help.

Mmmkay, so seeing as I'm getting bored of revision anyway I'll write a proper response.

Firstly your OP massively confuses incidental with intentional benefits for others. If I do something good for other people I may incidentally get the benefit of feeling good, but this was not the intention of my action. When I say I support the welfare state in principle as well as in practice it means that I think that is just morally acceptable as a good thing to do regardless of any personal benefit I may or may not get from it. Unless you can prove that at the point of action I am actively considering personal benefit, your case falls. You haven't, thus the near unanimous testimony of people that this isn't a major factor in the principled decision is enough to prove that compassion is a motive behind the welfare state.

Secondly, there's the matter of efficacy. Our government is bound to represent a certain group of people and has a large amount of power with regard to them. The further culturally it moves the further it moves from it's own political ability to enact positive change in the same way that people believe welfare can. Giving food to starving people in other countries does not solve the endemic problems that cause food shortages in the long term. The way you achieve this is political pressure as distinct from direct aid. Whereas given the welfare state is entirely internal, political pressure comes from within thus giving direct aid is already targeted at long term solutions. A little money goes a lot further

Now, given we already do give direct aid insofar as is possible, and do mount by popular consent political pressure for long term change to solve the institutional problems, directly spreading resources across the globe in a communist manner is a poor use of resources even for altruistic goals. Why? Because in our own country we no longer have the resources to institute long term change we'd otherwise like to try and do through a welfare state (get people supported and back into work etc.), in other states, not only do they still not have enough resources to do it, they don't have the political will either.

Finally, even if we concede self-interest as a factor, this does not prove compassion or altruism is not. Why? Firstly, see point 1, secondly the two are not mutually exclusive and you haven't demonstrated why they are so. Indeed your list of potential reasons are completely in goal with altruistic intentions. Yes I want less crime around me but yes I also want other people to be not forced by social conditions into crime and the often unpleasant consequences that entails for them.

Better response?

[Sdiff]

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Mmmkay, so seeing as I'm getting bored of revision anyway I'll write a proper response.

Firstly your OP massively confuses incidental with intentional benefits for others. If I do something good for other people I may incidentally get the benefit of feeling good, but this was not the intention of my action. When I say I support the welfare state in principle as well as in practice it means that I think that is just morally acceptable as a good thing to do regardless of any personal benefit I may or may not get from it. Unless you can prove that at the point of action I am actively considering personal benefit, your case falls. You haven't, thus the near unanimous testimony of people that this isn't a major factor in the principled decision is enough to prove that compassion is a motive behind the welfare state.

Secondly, there's the matter of efficacy. Our government is bound to represent a certain group of people and has a large amount of power with regard to them. The further culturally it moves the further it moves from it's own political ability to enact positive change in the same way that people believe welfare can. Giving food to starving people in other countries does not solve the endemic problems that cause food shortages in the long term. The way you achieve this is political pressure as distinct from direct aid. Whereas given the welfare state is entirely internal, political pressure comes from within thus giving direct aid is already targeted at long term solutions. A little money goes a lot further

Now, given we already do give direct aid insofar as is possible, and do mount by popular consent political pressure for long term change to solve the institutional problems, directly spreading resources across the globe in a communist manner is a poor use of resources even for altruistic goals. Why? Because in our own country we no longer have the resources to institute long term change we'd otherwise like to try and do through a welfare state (get people supported and back into work etc.), in other states, not only do they still not have enough resources to do it, they don't have the political will either.

Finally, even if we concede self-interest as a factor, this does not prove compassion or altruism is not. Why? Firstly, see point 1, secondly the two are not mutually exclusive and you haven't demonstrated why they are so. Indeed your list of potential reasons are completely in goal with altruistic intentions. Yes I want less crime around me but yes I also want other people to be not forced by social conditions into crime and the often unpleasant consequences that entails for them.

Better response?

I'll give you 8/10 for expression but 3/10 for purpose. You wrote a lot, but read my OP. You barely touched upon it in your post.

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by Sdiff)
I'll give you 8/10 for expression but 3/10 for purpose. You wrote a lot, but read my OP. You barely touched upon it in your post.

Suit yourself I'll quote by quote rebut your OP using only quotes from my post:

(Original post by Sdiff)
Let's start with the net recipients. It is no mystery why these people support a welfare state. They get money from it and enjoy a comfortable standard of living. For the vast majority of net recipients, they support it because of greed. Greed for a better life and more money. This is relatively plain.

Cool, but rebutted here:

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Firstly your OP massively confuses incidental with intentional benefits for others. If I do something good for other people I may incidentally get the benefit of feeling good, but this was not the intention of my action. When I say I support the welfare state in principle as well as in practice it means that I think that is just morally acceptable as a good thing to do regardless of any personal benefit I may or may not get from it. Unless you can prove that at the point of action I am actively considering personal benefit, your case falls. You haven't, thus the near unanimous testimony of people that this isn't a major factor in the principled decision is enough to prove that compassion is a motive behind the welfare state.

and here:

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Finally, even if we concede self-interest as a factor, this does not prove compassion or altruism is not. Why? Firstly, see point 1, secondly the two are not mutually exclusive and you haven't demonstrated why they are so. Indeed your list of potential reasons are completely in goal with altruistic intentions. Yes I want less crime around me but yes I also want other people to be not forced by social conditions into crime and the often unpleasant consequences that entails for them.

The second point proves that intentionally benefiting from an action does not mean that it necessarily precludes other motivations and the first that it does not necessitate that motivation being desired at all. Both those things have to be proved in order to prove that the welfare state is based on greed and no sense of altruism whatsoever.

(Original post by Sdiff)
Which brings us to the next category: The net contributors who support the welfare state. They claim that their support of the welfare state is because of compassion for "the poorest, the least fortunate".

But you forget this:

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Finally, even if we concede self-interest as a factor, this does not prove compassion or altruism is not. Why? Firstly, see point 1, secondly the two are not mutually exclusive and you haven't demonstrated why they are so. Indeed your list of potential reasons are completely in goal with altruistic intentions. Yes I want less crime around me but yes I also want other people to be not forced by social conditions into crime and the often unpleasant consequences that entails for them.

(Original post by Sdiff)
But herein lies the great fallacy: The poorest and least fortunate in the world live in Africa. Yet most proponents of the welfare state are RELATIVELY apathetic to these people's poverty, and are happy for them to receive only charity.

And of course:

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
You get that the government has a foreign aid budget too right?

(Original post by Sdiff)
I say relatively not absolutely apathetic, because while they may give to charity, they for the most part do not support the widespread taking of huge amounts of money by the government to pay for a welfare state for these people in Africa. There is a huge hypocrisy here: People who produce nothing in Britain are entitled to a nice welfare state, but people in Africa are entitled to crumbs off the table.

Because in Britain we are capable of achieving:

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
A little money goes a lot further

Due to:

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
the matter of efficacy. Our government is bound to represent a certain group of people and has a large amount of power with regard to them. The further culturally it moves the further it moves from it's own political ability to enact positive change in the same way that people believe welfare can. Giving food to starving people in other countries does not solve the endemic problems that cause food shortages in the long term. The way you achieve this is political pressure as distinct from direct aid. Whereas given the welfare state is entirely internal, political pressure comes from within thus giving direct aid is already targeted at long term solutions.

(Original post by Sdiff)
This proves that most proponents of the welfare state do not do so for compassionate reasons but for selfish ones. Example: Less crime, ugly social
problems in their area, insurance etc. So in conclusion, maybe people against the welfare state do have this position because of greed, but then people who support the welfare state also do so because of greed.

Apart from this:

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Firstly your OP massively confuses incidental with intentional benefits for others. If I do something good for other people I may incidentally get the benefit of feeling good, but this was not the intention of my action. When I say I support the welfare state in principle as well as in practice it means that I think that is just morally acceptable as a good thing to do regardless of any personal benefit I may or may not get from it. Unless you can prove that at the point of action I am actively considering personal benefit, your case falls. You haven't, thus the near unanimous testimony of people that this isn't a major factor in the principled decision is enough to prove that compassion is a motive behind the welfare state.

and this:

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Finally, even if we concede self-interest as a factor, this does not prove compassion or altruism is not. Why? Firstly, see point 1, secondly the two are not mutually exclusive and you haven't demonstrated why they are so. Indeed your list of potential reasons are completely in goal with altruistic intentions. Yes I want less crime around me but yes I also want other people to be not forced by social conditions into crime and the often unpleasant consequences that entails for them.

Tbf I think you also massively misconstrue the case of those wanting to keep their own money and not have the government tax it and give it in aid to being about greed as well but that's an altogether different debate.