Philosophy discussion

Hi Everyone --

In the introductory comments JP raised the question of where, in terms of political philosophy, we should draw the line on freedom. I've copied his remarks below, and I expect there should be quite a few excellent ideas about this subject.



JP's Post:

I recently started a learning module from the Open University on Philosophy and it got me thinking. While they barely scratch the surface, the module focus is on Isaiah Berlin's discussion of negative and positive liberty (or freedom). I read the entry for negative and positive liberty online from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and it was very informative. I thought we might have a go at this topic.

To start though, I'll pose a question. What is the limit of freedom? For example, Berlin describes negative freedom as "freedom from interference" while he describes positive freedom as "freedom to act". In other words, "external" freedom vs. "internal" or moral freedom. But at what point does my freedom to act (my positive freedom) impinge on your freedom from interference (your negative freedom)? The example they give on the OU is that if Country A invades Country B in order to save an oppressed people, but the the oppressed people don't want to be saved. What then is freedom and what is its limit?

Hi JP --

I'll make a few comments about this.


For example, Berlin describes negative freedom as "freedom from interference" while he describes positive freedom as "freedom to act".

This brings up another question: Are our individual freedoms complete if they are all negative freedoms such as you describe? Let's say the government has no power to interfere with my freedom of speech. Would that really be all I needed to express myself, or would I also require some positive freedom such as a right to part of the public airwaves?

Here's another interesting angle: When we talk about the positive "freedom to act," does this, or should it, translate into a right on our parts to force the government to act in our interests?



But at what point does my freedom to act (my positive freedom) impinge on your freedom from interference (your negative freedom)?

What's needed is a way to weigh this in a balance, so it may boil down to a question of what political stance best balances the two interest. For example, would utilitarianism applied to politics be a good way to settle this question? That is, what philosophy applies best to political situations?



... if Country A invades Country B in order to save an oppressed people, but the the oppressed people don't want to be saved.

Here's another important question: If human rights are at stake, does that place a limit on national sovereignty? Should every nation be immune from all outside interference. At the moment, that's the de facto rule of world politics, it seems.

Where it comes to the oppressed people themselves, we've all heard from time to time these interviews with minorities in oppressive countries who say they're okay about what we think of as oppression. But is that the end of the matter? What if these people cannot speak freely enough to raise any objections? What if their cultural education is so restricted they have little concept of their own oppression? Then, also, even if someone agrees (with full knowledge) to be oppressed, does that person speak for all members of that community?

Tyler -

I don't think "freedom to act" does or should mean our right to force the government to act in our interests. If so, we would impinge on their negative freedom. I think we have to look at it as external freedom vs. internal freedom. External freedom from interference and the internal discipline to do what is morally correct (so long as it doesn't impinge on another's negative freedom). In other words, so long as we stay within our own sphere we're free to act. Put more simply, we're free to act with respect to ourselves.

The problem with utilitarianism is that it seeks to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. By definition, the government is exercising it's positive freedom to improve the lives of the masses, even if a minority of the masses is forced to do something they don't want to do (and are negatively affected). It's very Machiavellian in my opinion.

Tough call on national sovereignty. Americans are quick to point out the injustices abroad, and how it is our right to save those in need. I doubt those same Americans would want anyone from North Korea coming to the U.S. to "save us" from capitalism. I think national sovereignty should be respected unless there is a clear violation of human rights in which case I think a higher moral law should be followed. It's a sticky subject to be sure.

" . . . It's very Machiavellian in my opinion . . ."

Hmmm.

Well . . . again, this is a huge topic and question.

Rather than address any number of issues here which seem to involve variables within a large abstract system of thought, I'd like to bring up a point about "freedom" that seems to be pervasive; yet, I hear very few speak of it:

Tthe difference between "freedom" and "licentiousnes."

In our America today, there seems to be a confusion. Or perhaps, folks don't seem to know the difference. Perhaps, this was never learned which is even more frightening. It seems, though, to be true judging from Jay Leno's "Jaywalking."

Whether gleaned from Aristotle or Emerson, Plato or Henry Adams, Mom and Dad, or Grandma and Grandpa, this distinction seems to have been eroded away.

But then again, when the business model eats EVERYTHING, then this DOES stand to reason.

Of course, we see the result: octoplets from growth hormones, 25 to 30% of our adult population becoming obese, rampant cheating, rampant corruption, a glut of swindling, and unfortunately, a bankruptcy of art and culture.

I am hoping so . . . for Restoration.

Hi JP --

We've got a couple of distinct concepts in a broad topic. Besides "positive" and "negative" rights, you contrast "external" freedoms with "internal" self-discipline.

Freedoms and self-discipline aren't exactly opposites, and I se R.a. is concerned with something similar. In After Virtue, the author touches on this point, but he puts it differently: He distinguishes between "morality" and "virtue." By morality he means a system applicable to a whole society or political entity, not to the individual, a system like utilitarianism. Moral systems, he says, have failed because they've been co-opted by power for its own purposes. So the thrust of the book is a kind of salvation by returning to the development of the virtues within individuals. So my question: Is the author on to something, or will private ethical development have little effect within modern political institutions?


I don't think "freedom to act" does or should mean our right to force the government to act in our interests.

Here's an interesting question: Do we possess that right in the first place? And if not, who should be the proper beneficiary of government action?


...so long as we stay within our own sphere we're free to act.

This sounds good, and I hear this all the time, but is it really? One problem is that the notion of our sphere is too vague. Another is ethical: By minding our own business, are we really acting ethically; or do we, as political agents, have some ethical responsibility to speak out about political matters that don't directly concern us?

About utilitarianism: By definition, the government is exercising it's positive freedom to improve the lives of the masses, even if a minority of the masses is forced to do something they don't want to do...

Language is important here. Do governments possess freedoms, or is it individuals who possess them? That said, the problem is as you say. Most people will benefit, but always at the expense of some. It seems that much of government actually does take place along utilitarian lines, at least in the West. So how could this be changed to make the system fairer? Individuals possess negative rights equally, but equality seems to vanish when governments act. What is it that's going amiss here?


I doubt those same Americans would want anyone from North Korea coming to the U.S. to "save us" from capitalism.

No, we wouldn't, but consider what happened when Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979 to get rid of Pol Pot. Of course, they had national interests in mind, but by that time a genocide was in progress and Vietnam stopped it. Should they have acted, even if Vietnam wasn't being affected by what was going on in Cambodia? I think somebody from outside Cambodia simply had to act at that point. If that's true, there must be some limit on national sovereignty.

But right now, nobody seems to be able to express that limit in terms of political philosophy, and international action is taking place on an ad hoc basis. This has led to some troublesome political decisions about intervention in other countries. I wonder if anyone can think of a general rule under which nations would have the political right to intervene in the affairs of other states.

Hi R.a. --

I think the problem of freedom and licentiousness is that under the modern polical structures of most developed countries, governments recognize a freedom on the part of individuals to engage in licentious practices. The longstanding problem is that the alternative is something like what we see in Islamic countries, and nobody outside Islam wants to adopt that approach as a political model.

The problems you point out, to me, are more social than political. It's true we have so low a common denominator in Western culture that I wonder how anything ever gets done right. If people are as ignorant as it seems, that must somehow be damaging the political system.

But I don't see a "Restoration" as an answer because I don't think there's anything particularly good to go back to. Maybe you disagree on this point, and if so, then what do you think would lessen this problem? What laws should we put in place to change things?


But then again, when the business model eats EVERYTHING, then this DOES stand to reason.

I agree. It appears that the profit motive affects behavior outside of economics. If we ask why so many stupid people pop up on Leno's "Jaywalking," one answer is that our economic system places little value on thinking. After all, all the stupid people seem to have decent jobs -- that's what's really amazing.

Yet if that's the case, it means our economic system is what's determining our moral values! And if it's determining our moral values, it's determining our entire political structure as well. Now what about that? Is my line of reasoning correct? And if so, what do we do about it?

The problems you point out, to me, are more social than political.

I think we're at odds on a definition, here. In my "comment of ennui," I'm intending to focus on the individual. Also, I tend to consider "political" in the Marxian sense: i.e., "social."

But I don't see a "Restoration" as an answer because I don't think there's anything particularly good to go back to.

Yikes ! No, no, no, no, no . . . Oh please, don't tell me that you really feel this way. A balance between individual rights and the larger polis, a federal system to keep in check abuses of power, a democratic republic that CAN represent the people . . . and on . . . My goodness, this is our first, best hope! Shall we return to fraudelant aristocracy (which is what IS happening); shall we accept as given the rising oligarchy (which is happening or has happened); shall we re-institute royalty (again, it seems to be happening only without titles), shall we embrace the nihilistic, athiest systems of the 20th century which only brought totalitarianism? No. It seems to me that this invention from the Enlightenment is an organism that has the potential "to hold."

The "potential." But, to be honest, I don't think we will be able to capture a "Restoration." But, I am hoping that this can and will be . . . so much so.

. . . what do you think would lessen this problem? What laws should we put in place to change things? . . .

Therein your comment lies the problem, I think. "What laws should we put in place . . ." The lawyers and the politicians (Do we have any statesmen left?) are masters of "systemic architecture." The moment we have to legislate is perhaps the moment a value "is gone." And, the age-old question, can one legislate "the good, the noble, and the beautiful" arises, once again. It doesn't seem so. So again, I return to the "individual."

" . . . what do we do about it? . . .

Here it is. Here, is the REAL question. What CAN we do when the "polis" gets too big (A correct observation from Socrates, methinks)? What CAN we do?

I have a few thoughts regarding the attention to Fairness and Honesty; but, to go on here would take quite a page. But, these two "ideas" are at the heart of it, I think.

Another "social" problem that no-one speaks of (as it necessarily brings up a problematic question of freedom) is our national and the global population. Simply, we're killing Gaia. Only China has directly acted on this. And, of course, those officials enacted policies that were understandably China-focused.

I don't know your age, Tyler; but, I am one of those creatures who sits in time between the "now" adult generation and a younger one. I have seen (and felt) the scales tip. And, as I see younger Americans today, I can't help but feel so sorry for them. In my own little way, I try to impart what "used to be," "what can be." But, I try to refrain from any particular ardent ideology as this usually leads to betrayal and ultimately to worse systemic realities.

Yes, indeed . . . What CAN we do?

For the moment, like many other kindred spirits, I am striving presently to carve a "niche" for myself--one where I can perhaps positively affect others, and above all, evoke thought. And, if I'm lucky, "tug" at their thumotic centers a bit. Re-create that "FOR SHAME" with the glare that would come our way at egregious transgressions when we were kids. That IS gone. That "FOR SHAME" that used to stir the genitals to nervousness and fear—indeed to urination. And, it stirred that NOT for fear of punishment, BUT FOR the fear of one's own recognition and realization that the act was "wrong." Yes, one could "feel" it in the "guts."

Yet, it seems that this sense is gone—whisped aside by a more sociopathic sensibility and disposition, perhaps.

Anyway, a rather poor answer to a VITAL question. And, as we "go along," maybe I can find some other points. And yet, I . . . or rather we cannot tarry.

Kudos, my friend,

I totally agree with you R.A., the "FOR SHAME" is gone from our society. I'm in my mid-30s and I remember the "FOR SHAME" glare from my grandparents when I was a kid. Today, kids don't care what their parents think of them. We did.

I also agree with Tyler's comment that our economic system may be impacting our moral system! Think about it. Our property taxes go to the town we live in which in turn pays for the public school system. Towns that are middle or lower class obviously pay less taxes into the system. As a result the school is generally of a lower quality. Therefore, a vicious cycle ensues where kids are denied a top-notch education simply because of where they live or what they're parents do. Kids that live in more affluent areas generally attend better schools and receive a better education. The path then is opened a little wider to college (particularly the Ivy League schools), while potential smarter, less advantaged children are forced to suffer. Granted, it is possible to rise from your circumstances to be great, and many have done it. But as a class, it's impossible. The affluent love to point out examples like Oprah Winfrey that rose above her circumstances. But for every Oprah Winfrey there are hundreds of thousands of kids stuck in th cycle. At any rate, I digress. Just drawing a parallel between the economy and its affect on our moral virtue.

Oh, I agree, too.

Sometimes, when I'm trying to "sort" a response, I forget to address the 'direct' question.

But, inherent in my little diatribe about oligarchy, royalty, etc., I meant to mention the link between money and "morality."

Although I love philosophy, I really try to "step away" a bit from the tendency toward argumentative discussion. I try, rather, to buoy conversation (this, in the spirit of ancient "true rhetoric" rather than "sophistical" and/or "polemical" rhetoric).

But, if ever my word choice or diction offends, please do pardon me. It is never my intention. Indeed, let me know.

I particularly like this group as it is welcoming, friendly, and thought-provoking—such a refreshing change from a previous site where members "clobbered" each other with divisive logic. Indeed, it progressed to the point where two members alienated almost every other member in the rather large group.

No member should ever be worried about posting a question, observation, etc., amidst fear of pedantic criticism. That seems to me to contradict the whole spirit of the subject: to question.

Ooops. I digress . . . AGAIN !

"Since brevity is the soul of wit . . ."

To all . . . kudos !

Whoa !

Another big question . . .

A TOTAL lack of free will? The "nature" vs. "nurture" argument? Only fate? Or . . . aka the Ancient Greeks: fate and destiny?

Quickly . . . I can't help consider this question on a personal level. And so, I do embrace the Ancient Greek idea, here, ("fate and destiny,"), i.e., fate being the circumstances (including time/history) the one is "born into" and destiny being the choices one makes "within" that "fate."

Should we try to nudge this to the "morality" topic? Tyler? JP? Help.

And yet, this can key into the earlier posts regarding morality as a system vs. an individual ethic/morality, etc. Even if/when we consider the "fate" of "empires."

Hi Chris --

I'm going to move your question to its own thread under "General" because it's a major topic that deserves its own thread.


Hi R.a. --

Should we try to nudge this to the "morality" topic? Tyler? JP? Help.

I think you're right. Chris's question is at the top of the General folder, where readers can see it more easily.

Note to All: There was a post by Chris between msg 9 and msg 10 by R.a. I apologize for breaking the flow of the thread.

Okay, I'll add a little to the idea of a Restoration to earlier values. I'm not so sure that there was anything to go back to ...

Oh please, don't tell me that you really feel this way.

The things you're wanting to go back to -- the checks and balances, for instance, don't seem to me any weaker now that in some earlier times.

The obvious counterexample is the political system between the 30's and the 60's. So I take it that what you (R.a.) don't like is the way things later turned out, especially since 2000. On the other hand, was the recognition of the rights of racial and sexual minorites stronger then -- or now?

Regardless, today's political structure may have suffered major damage that prevents it from functioning as intended. But wait -- despite the activist government of an earlier era, the idea that the American government is supposed to function for the people has been set aside by the facts since at least 1870, when corporatism was introduced as an alternative to democracy. So perhaps this golden era was a fluke, and the corporatists have been in control all along.


I'm intending to focus on the individual. Also, I tend to consider "political" in the Marxian sense: i.e., "social."

Marx considered Max Stirner's ideas the ones to which he had the greatest need to respond. Stirner was an individualist whose ideas have gone on to motivate various libertarian philosophies, and these, whether we like it or not, are the governing philosophy of the public and politicians.

Marx has his own problems as well. If an individual emerges from a social situation, then individual rights are a function of the society, not the individual.

Let's go to JP's negative versus positive rights distinction. Libertarians claim to be the supporters of our negative rights (you may not take my property). Socialists champion whatever positive rights we have (you must be taken care of in your old age).

Negative and positive rights clash. By what theory, and to what extent, may a government compel property owners or wage earners, through taxation, to support people in their old age? There's JP's conflict between rights.

That raises two other questions: First, for whom does a govenment properly act? Second, do rights inure to individuals, or to social structures of some kind? In other words, does the government create rights when it acts, or does it simply recognize pre-existing rights?

About the question of whether the government can legislate "the good, the noble and the beautiful," I think the government can indeed legislate good. We can certainly see how much bad legislation can be made, so why not good as well?

A government's laws mandating safety standards is a good example. Clearly airbags in cars work. But libertarians reject any effort by the government to make them mandatory. Doing so most certainly does infringe on individuals' rights to be free from government control and live as they choose.

So again, back to the negative/positive rights dilemma. If the government can mandate this, what's to stop it from mandating things that endanger human life? How can the government mandate something without sacrificing individual freedoms in a fundamentally dangerous way?

I think this is two sides of the same coin. At what point does an individual's ability to act freely (positive freedom) infringe on my ability to be left alone (negative freedom)? This is a much larger question. And if the government legislates based on what they believe is "best for us" then does government descend into a paternalism? Whose to say what's best for us except ourselves? Socrates would have surely supported properly trained "philosopher kings" to make these decisions for us. But I doubt that our current legislators meet this definition. Most are lawyers by trade and not philosophers. What do you think?

When Plato wrote The Republic he couldn't have known how the idea of philosopher-kings would be abused, nor of the horrible ideologies that would be traced back to him on account of that proposal. So I say Plato/Socrates is off the hook for that one.

We do have lawyers and people skilled in rhetoric and politics running the government. But that's not good or bad as far as government itself goes. Good or bad depends on what those lawyers and politicians intend. I think it's important to distinguish between government as an abstraction, and the rhetoric thrown at that abstraction. So ...


...does government descend into a paternalism?

Because of its rhetorical nature, I'm suspicious calling government actions "paternalistic." The choice of word implies beforehand the kind of judgment the speaker wants us to make. Conceivably, anything the government does is "paternalistic," but obviously most governments do lots of good things, at least if you look at it from a utilitarian standpoint: building highways and airports, for example. Sure, they're saying what's "best for us," (that's the utilitarian part), but often it's actually the best action in the face of the alternatives.

But does the government always have to act from a utilitarian point of view? Now there's a question that really pertains to negative and positive rights.


Whose to say what's best for us except ourselves?

Well ... the government, sometimes. At the very least we can all think of lots of people in our lives who should never be left to make decisions about what's best for themselves. The question is whether it's moral to allow such people to just self-destruct. If we shouldn't allow people to destroy their lives in certain ways, then at some point we may have to get the government to act. We may have to trump their negative rights with our positive ones.


At what point does an individual's ability to act freely (positive freedom) infringe on my ability to be left alone (negative freedom)?

I'm going hungry, or dying for the lack of a medicine, so I rob your house. You don't like that -- you expect to have your stuff left alone. Which right is greater, the positive one or the negative one?

Like many of my neighbors, you fire your guns all the time near my house. I get nervous, and I demand that the county commission put restrictions on the use of guns. Does that mean I'm unjustly abridging your negative rights?

Perhaps one way to answer these two dilemmas is to ask: What is the most immediate need? How does that sound for a start?

Hi ! Back again . . .

Just a few points.

"The things you're wanting to go back to -- the checks and balances, for instance, don't seem to me any weaker now that in some earlier times."

I may, perhaps, be trying to "get at" a more "individual" question—perhaps one of individual "decency," or "honesty."

And of the corruptions in the past . . . Oh, I agree. And, your point regarding the minority, etc., is absolutely valid. Perhaps, that's my disappointment. Perhaps, I at one point romantically projected an idea of a potential Renaissance. But, instead of Elizabeth I, we came to a Cromwell.

Yet, the suspension of habeous corpus is HUGE!

Also, this next issue is more a point about some groups rather than the government itself—the 1st Amendment with regard to "Freedom of Religion" was emplaced to protect government from religion, at least one vestige of Protestantism. Interesting that today some Protestant groups seem to be forgetting their own Protestantism when it comes to political activism, not individually, but through a church.

Lastly, add the polarization of Congress with corporate career appointments in and out of government where legislation is boldfacedly affected makes me wonder if our history has had such a marked or perhaps "deep" corrupting influence.

On most of your points, I am in agreement; but, I can't help but wonder as this is the time I am living through; and again, I sit, perhaps, in a perculiar time "in history."

Also, I seem to see such a complacent, entitlement-type disposition in the young which I find to be extremely disturbing.

"So perhaps this golden era was a fluke, and the corporatists have been in control all along."

An absolutely "reasonable" doubt. HUGE influence: Grant, the railroads, the inner city trolley systems, etc. But was it as pervasive or ubiquitous as now? Maybe bigger. Or more direct. But . . . was it as deeply-seated? ?

"About the question of whether the government can legislate 'the good, the noble and the beautiful,' I think the government can indeed legislate good. We can certainly see how much bad legislation can be made, so why not good as well?"

I like this. GREAT point.

"At what point does an individual's ability to act freely (positive freedom) infringe on my ability to be left alone (negative freedom)?"

I can't help but think of Tom Paine's opening line to Common Sense, here . . . re: "Society is 'good';" yet, "Government is 'bad.'" Consequently, government has one role: "to protect." And consequently, defining boundaries with respect to a "balance" between an individual's liberty and his/her responsibility to the greater "polis" becomes vital to government's role.

"But does the government always have to act from a utilitarian point of view? Now there's a question that really pertains to negative and positive rights."

Absolutely! Again, thank Zeus this republic miraculously came into being during the Enlightenment! And, thank Zeus for the Iroquois!

Regarding this notion of "positive" and "negative" rights, I can't help but notice a seemingly "deconstructive" quality of the language. "Postive/Negative." A Binary. And, as one is foregrounded, the other becomes "marked," tacitly, sub-textually insinuating that the "other" is indeed "bad." Hence, "guns" takes on a "marked" "negative" shifting here. When in another "context," this particular "freedom" issue would/could have a "positive" coloring.

As the American that I am, I can't help but think of America as the "Individual projecting up," rather than the "State" or a "System projecting down," even though I'm quite aware that the latter often seems the paradigm.

¡ Muchas gracías for the help and for the clear examples !

A few points? Yikes ! I went on and on !

Kudos!

When people impinge on others than our personal freedoms are lost. Like the homeless situation here, they are blocking the sidewalks, they at first only were alloted a small area, and now they are taking up most of the sidewalk. Maybe homelessness is too big of an issue. but anything that makes another person question others is in fact taking away their personal freedom. Those are just my thoughts.

Yes, I know in a sense homeless people do have rights, but it has become a societal problem which no one can logically remedy. Giving people money who ask for it, is not the answer either. I knew from the outset that you give people freedom to do what they want, they will keep challenging the "rights" that they have. It is rampant here, to the beaches, people camp and set up their belongings, to Waikiki, which is a tourist destination, they are on the benches fronting the beach.

Well, it has changed considerably, I remember as early as the 70's there was a small percentage of homeless in Waiikiki. I am not trying to dissuade you from coming, but I think homelessness is a prevalent problem everywhere. The one place where I did not see homeless is on the Big Island of Hawaii, but as you go out to Puna/Keeau District they do have some sort of tent area, but it is nothing blatant like on the beach. But in the city environs I did not see any.

Thanks Nanette, for your eloquent views. Most of the homeless here are for the most part the mentally ill, who don't think they need to go to homeless shelters. I know these people must have families somewhere locally.I just was telling Patrice that the people on the streets seem to cover up the entire sidewalks, and it being a societal problem. I don't know what the answer is. I am glad you got out of it.

Maybe Obama will come up with some kind of solution to the homeless plight as well.

No, I get where you are coming from. In Hawaii the legislators enacted some kind of law where they will give the homeless a one-way ticket back to the mainland. Which is stupid, since maybe only a small percentage of homeless are from the mainland. Mainland being the contiguous states. Or they also wanted to try to give shots to the homeless and take them to the hospital, but ACLU said that is unconstitutional, which I agree with. I know that psychiatrists and psychologist are pill pushers, they'd rather dope you up than hear your problems.

They are under the assumption that they are mentally ill and need to be hospitalized, but that is a broad generalization. I think the shots would be like tranquilizer, Thorazine maybe, just guessing. Maybe they think the only way they can get the homeless is by giving them injections to tranquilize them into submission. I just think this is a problem that has gotten out of control. The local media are the worse, they glomb on to this like a bull terrier, and won't let go. This has been going on for decades, and what we also see in the press is that the homeless don't want to go to homeless shelters because they don't want to abide by the shelter's rules, so it goes on and on.

Yes, I think it would be tantamount to prison. I haven't been to a homeless shelter and so I see where people may not want to go. We have a mental halfway house near where I live, and they are no better they go out and try to panhandle for money also, so they are learning to try to get something for nothing, without working, so it is a catch 22. This is a vicious cycle. I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were mentally ill, just talking about what the media here want to explain away why there are so many homeless people in Hawaii.

Hi Robin --

Yes, I know in a sense homeless people do have rights, but it has become a societal problem which no one can logically remedy."

Why do you think the problem is logically unsolvable?

Everyone seems to have a one-size fits all solution is not the answer. A logical step would be to have shelters for them to go to, but they don't want to go, and they have lots of services to provide for them. Some people feel that it is not for them, so if they are unwilling to go how do you force your ideals on someone else and make them go. I was just saying that there seems to be no solution to address the greater need of getting them housing, which would benefit all concerned.

I can't help but jump in . . .

Re: the Mentally Ill, homeless, etc.

Years ago now, many of the mentally ill were released from state-run hospitals with the advent of the anti-psychotic drugs. Unfortunately, many hospitals released many who, perhaps, should have had a more insured and structured treatment. The "catch" to this money-saving move was that "Out-Patient Centers" were created.

However, given a patient with severe schizophrenia who actually feels comfortable enough to attend, one who smells bad, paces, speaks to the air, etc., and a patient with a drug problem, the facility ends up treating the patient with the drug problem. Needless to say, these centers treated less and less the severely mentally ill.

How about this? Let's CURE these damned diseases!

Yet, the profession and the private health care industry don't seem too keen with cure. as lucrative drug sales already have been projected into the next thirty years.

. . . which brings up the Health Care Debate. Should we at least "look" at that as well as the 100K salaries SOME NURSES are grossing? And, of course, there's the insurance industry.

Where are the passionate and selfless like Dr. Torrey and Dr. Salk. They exist. I know. I've seen and talked to them. But somehow, something blocks their progress.

As for the homeless, I would expect a population growth especially of those who do NOT suffer from any mental illness. The newspaper still provides valuable news: the foreclosure listings number PAGES with every edition (from 2008 through the present).

Homeless people have rights in a sense? Hmmmm.

Well, we shouldn't worry; Eugenics is alive and well. Indeed, interest in that field seems to be returning evermore.

I can't help but wonder what the outlook in 2050 will be when the world population is expected to be 9 billion?

Of course, by then, I myself probably will be in a "back room" somewhere--that same type of place where all those homeless and mentally ill people should be. Yes . . .

Logic . . . if only to a degree. I'll hold to empathy, myself.

This is a boondoggle of a dilemma, since everyone is affected from the doctors who want to do the right thing, to the people who are in the system, to everyone in between. I don't know what the answer is, but everyone needs to be treated, and Ii don't know what the future holds for all concerned.

Homeless people have rights in a sense? Hmmmm.

R.a. picked up on this and I noticed it, too. The discussion on this thread has been questioning limits to various forms of personal freedom. As a philosophical issue, it requires philosophical thinking. To think philosophically differs from ordinary thought, which is why people often spend a lifetime learning how to do it.

To treat this subject philosophically requires attention to an evaluative branch of philosophy known as logic. This includes standards for proper argumentation -- and argumentation is not the same as having an argument, venting or simply expressing an opinion.

R.a. states that eugenics is alive and well. I don't know what programs he has in mind, but it occurs to me that our economic system (that of the United States) ultimately bears down on those who don't fit into it.

The question, in terms of personal freedom, is whether homeless people have any rights. It's important to strive for objectivity regarding the problem, because I don't think we want to confuse essential and accidental characteristics of homeless people. As an example of what I mean, I, too, see homeless people congregating and blocking streets in American cities. But that's an accidental problem, not an essential characteristic.

So my first question is, What rights, if any, should homeless people have?

Second, if the homeless possess any rights, what is the obligation of government towards them?

Third, if the homeless possess no rights and they're such a nuisance, what exactly are we saying should be done with them?

Hi Patrice --

To restate this, then, your point is that everyone has a right to safety, and it's the government's responsibility to enforce it.

So, logically, intimidation of the nature you describe is properly a safety issue. It's an interesting question why any government allows unsafe conditions to abound.

However it comes about, it has everything to do with personal freedom, so it makes sense to pursue it on this thread. What we are entitled to in terms of personal safety is a question that stands by itself. But lack of safety becomes an accidental property of homelessness, not a necessary one. That is, someone can be homeless without endangering another person.


If someone is not in their right mind, if they are on drugs or are alcoholics or mentally ill, it seems to me that the government must do something to insure that they do not freeze to death on the sidewalk...

This is a separate issue from the safety one, and it gets closer to the necessary nature of homelessness. Your point here is that the government is required to do something about this state of affairs. Do the other posters see it this way, too?

By separating the accidental from the necessary progress has been made, because we now see that what once looked like one huge, unsolvable problem has broken into at least two discrete problems.

There may be other issues tangled up here as well, so it's good to try to separate them out if we can spot them. That way, the seemingly intractable problem of homelessness may give way to some kind of solution.

Good on all different levels, Tyler. But personal safety is where the police come in and rout out these people. Everyone is due personal safety. They can have all the programs in the world, but I don't see any homeless off the street as of yet. They don't want to be in a facility as Nanette pointed out. The homeless are like everyone else that they need a place to go, and I know we shouldn't see it as a blight but sometimes we cannot separate what they are liable to do, and personal safety.

Tyler wrote: "HBerlin describes negative freedom as "freedom from interference" while he describes positive freedom as "freedom to act". In other words, "external" freedom vs. "internal" or moral freedom. "

There is a semi-parallel to this duality, which may belong here or may belong in its own thread, and that concerns the issue of rights.

We, at least we in America, tend to cherish our rights. But there are two principal kinds of rights. One is purely a personal right which we should be permitted to exercise as long as we don't impose on others' rights. For example, I should have the right to practice whatever religious beliefs I want to as long as I don't try to impose them on others. Many of the "traditional" rights are of this kind -- the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, etc.

But there is another usage of "rights" under which my right imposes a duty on somebody else. For example, many today like to talk about a right to health care. But if I have a right to health care, that means that somebody has to provide that health care. My right to health care is only worth anything if there is a duty on somebody else to provide health care. If for some reason no medical professional is willing to provide me with health care, the right is in fact not a right. Similarly, many older people today claim that they have a right to receive Social Security. But that imposes an affirmative duty on somebody else to pay for my Social Security. If nobody paid Social Security taxes, the right to receive Social Security would in fact not be a right, or at least not a meaningful right.

How is it that the principles of "rights" go to the point where we assert rights which include the right to impose an affirmative duty on others?

Hi Everyman --

But there is another usage of "rights" under which my right imposes a duty on somebody else. [...] if I have a right to health care, that means that somebody has to provide that health care. My right to health care is only worth anything if there is a duty on somebody else to provide health care.

Thank you for putting it so clearly.

How is it that the principles of "rights" go to the point where we assert rights which include the right to impose an affirmative duty on others?

My answer would be that if we don't impose a duty on others, then some basic right will be affected. For example, let's say we accept that everybody has a right to life. But in a purely capitalist economic system, somebody who lost his job or pension could easily die without help. At this point, an affirmative duty has to be imposed on others to enforce the right to life as inalienable. Otherwise, the right to life is conditional.

Hi Nanette --

I am confused as to why anyone would assume that the homeless might not have rights?

American society does not recognize a "right" to shelter. As Everymany points out, doing so would impose a public obligation on the rest of us.

This explains why we have a sizeable homeless population in the first place and how local communities avoided a presumed responsibility put on them in the sixties, when deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill got underway.

Nanette wrote: "Everyman,

So what happens to all the money the "older" people had taken by the government out of their paychecks for Social Security? They just had that money taken for the hell of it?"

Nope. They had it taken to give to other people, meaning that they didn't have the chance to save it for their own retirements, meaning that there is a greater probability that they won't be able to provide for themselves but will be dependent on the state. Which is what certain governments count on; take so much of their income from the people that they all become dependent on the state for their basic life requirements.

Nanette wrote: "I am confused as to why anyone would assume that the homeless might not have rights? "

I'm not sure why you think anybody thinks that. Certainly they have rights. The right to believe what they want to believe. The right to be left alone by the police as long as they obey the laws. The right to work if they can find somebody willing to pay them to work. And on and on. Who has suggested that they don't ave these and many other rights?

What they might or might NOT have, depending on one's understanding of rights, is the right to demand that other people work to provide them with housing, with food, with medical care, etc.

Nanette wrote: "You can actually tell a government official that a certain person is using their welfare money or SSI money to smoke crack or shoot heroin and Social Security does not care. And welfare does not care. "

Should they? If SSI or welfare are entitlements, why are they less entitled to choose to spend the money on crack than I am entitled to spend it on a copy of Dante's Inferno? True, crack is illegal, and they can be separately punished for that. But is that enough of a difference to entitle me to spend my money on my chosen recreation but to deny them the same right?

Tyler wrote: "For example, let's say we accept that everybody has a right to life. But in a purely capitalist economic system, somebody who lost his job or pension could easily die without help. At this point, an affirmative duty has to be imposed on others to enforce the right to life as inalienable. Otherwise, the right to life is conditional. "

The right to life is always conditional, isn't it? I can choose to jump do very dangerous activities if I want to that put me at high risk of death. Personally, I also believe that suicide is an absolute right. The right to life, as I understand it, is the right not to have somebody else take it away from you (except under authority of law, which I have presumably agreed to by living under government -- see Plato's Crito). It is a right to be left alone. It is not a promise, at least as I understand it, that you will be entitled to demand that others provide for you the necessities to remain alive.

Hi Everyman --

The right to life, as I understand it, is the right not to have somebody else take it away from you
[...] It is not a promise, at least as I understand it, that you will be entitled to demand that others provide for you the necessities to remain alive.

Then you're granting the right to life on the one hand and taking it away on the other. There are people who cannot fend for themselves under the system of government we have. If that government ignores their needs, then it deprives them of the right to life under a different guise.

Hi Nanette --

I am saying that this thread has the "aura" of saying that the homeless don't have the right to EXIST at all.

I don't disagree there, but the discussion of how the homeless threaten our personal safety and our wallets is in large part what dehumanizes them to the point where they can be seen as objects, not people.

We talk about how "our" tax dollars shouldn't support this or that group, but those non-productive group members are also citizens of equal standing with a say as to how tax money should be spent.

Yes, you did mention that the mentally ill were de-institutionalized. What I meant to add was that this process began in the sixties under several administrations, not Carter. When the time came for local governments to take up the slack, local governments suddenly pleaded budget cuts and got out of the obligation.

Hi Nanette --

But don't you also agree that ABLE-BODIED women who purposely have baby after baby are also putting a dent in your wallet?

I think this is a straw man. The birth rate has been dropping for decades, even among welfare recipients and the poor. Welfare is aimed at children in the first place, and that's why it's easy to single these people out. In any case, what's the alternative? The obvious one is mandatory birth control as a condition of aid. Do you support and advocate that?

Yes, welfare was reformed. It was limited to five years and working was a condition for getting it. If a mother with kids still isn't on her feet after five years, I don't know what happens. It would be interesting to find out the answer.

They want the right to sleep on the street.

I don't believe any sane person would want to sleep in the street as opposed to housing unless the housing were more dangerous than the street. And if the latter is the case, then living in the street is a right in the sense that a person has a right to safety.

This is about the third time I've seen it said that the homeless really prefer being homeless. Does anybody have evidence that is true? Anecdotes do not count here.

This assertion sounds like a great way to assuage the consciences of people who have no intention of doing anything in the first place, but otherwise it makes no sense.

Hi Nanette --

I am being argued down like my FACTS have no meaning. And the birth rate for whites is down, not for others.

There's a difference between your personal experience of homelessness and the assertions you make about welfare in general. All I'm asking is for you, and everyone else, to provide more than simple assertions to go on. This is standard procedure in philosophy.

For example, you say the birth rate is down for whites but not for others. As I understand it, that was true until about 2000, when, according to what I've read, birth rates began dropping across both race and class lines.

All I'd like people to do is to cite some evidence that their assertions have a basis. For example, is there a link, maybe to the U.S. Census Bureau, that shows minority birth rates have stayed the same over the past twenty years?

In terms of the logic of argumentation, I'm only asking that an assertion be made sound. Otherwise, the discussion becomes rhetoric.

I do not think that your conscience is stronger than mine Tyler. [...] But tell me the solution? I haven't got one.

I didn't mean to single you out, but rather to point out that a large segment of the population has no conscience whatever about the homeless and many other things.

But as to the solution, isn't that what we're all trying to work out? For my part I earlier made a distinction between accidental and essential properties, which in logic will help solve the problem.

I'll offer this: The issue of what kind of people the homeless are is accidental to the problem itself. Homelessness has to be looked at first in isolation from the shortcomings of homeless people. By simplifying the problem this way, it becomes solvable. By dragging in the personal problems of the homeless, we give people in political power every incentive not to do anything about the situation: the segment of the population that has no conscience now also has an excuse.

Nanette wrote: "I know that we don't recognize a right to shelter. So what do you want to DO with them? "

That's certainly a fair question. The only answers, it seems to me, are a) nothing, it's up to them to decide how to or not to survive, and b) their right to life does indeed impose an affirmative obligation on other people to provide them the means to survive. Then we ask whether that obligation should be voluntary -- that is, supported by voluntary donations as was done for millenia through public, often church-related charities, or imposed by government, which is to say by the force of the gun (which is the only ultimate source of power that any government has).

It should also be noted that the US minimum standard of acceptable living is vastly different from that in much of the world. Do we provide only the same "right to life" that those living in the slums of Bogota, in the villages of the deep Congo, or in the jungles of Borneo experience? Or do we go from that toward the style of living which Bill Gates enjoys, and if so, how far do we go, and how do we decide how far we should go?

I hope it doesn't sound cruel or inhuman to ask that, but it's a question that is either asked or ignored, and I think better asked than ignored.

Nanette wrote: "Long story...I wrote a whole book about the homeless, welfare, poverty system... "

Was it published? If so, title please?

Nanette wrote: "I feel like this goes around and around and is never logical. No, why should they spend the money that all of you are saying they don't deserve, on something illegal?"

it's a dilemma for sure. On the one hand, why pay people who use the money to commit a crime. (But be careful of where this argument will take us. Should we stop paying Social Security to people who play bridge with their friends for ten cents a hundred, which is technically gambling and illegal in most states? Take away the Section 8 vouchers for a woman with five children who ran out of food stamps and stole a bottle of milk to feed her kids?)

On the other hand, I think there's a certain right of personal dignity. If you're going to give me money, let me do what I want to with it. If I commit a crime (and in my opinion, nobody is capable in today's society of living a single day without breaking the law in one way or another), I should accept the price of paying for it. But I'm not a child; let me do with my money what I want to do with it.

A dilemma. A conflict of important values, I think.

Patrice wrote: "The real dillemma comes from the homeless themselves. They want the right to sleep on the street. "

There are a few for whom this appears to be true. But if you look deeper, I think they aren't saying that they want to be on the street. They're saying that the demands made on them by programs that offer to take them off the street are worse than sleeping on the street. Most shelters prohibit smoking and drinking, for example. Most require a certain level of personal hygiene. Many will not allow certain personal possessions to be brought into the shelter. They demand a sacrifice of personal freedom in exchange for shelter. They impose schedules, they force you to comply with their routines. Many subject you to lectures, moralizing, dehumanizing "sympathy."

I suspect that if you offered anybody now on the street a home which is private and comfortable, where they are as free to set their rules for themselves as you and I are in our homes, that many of those who "want" to live on the street would take it in a heartbeat.

But personally, if my only choice were between a bed in some of the shelters I visited long ago when I was in my "social work" phase back in New York City and sleeping in a park in Venice, California, I would take the park.

Hi Nanette --

How dare you tell me that "just" because I experienced homelessness, went through the system, that I know nothing...what? they changed it up just for me????

If this is the way this group works, where I have knowledge, and you have rhetoric and opinions, then, Buh Bye...you can be king shit.


You are resorting to rhetoric, name calling and vulgarity to make your point. I feel pretty safe now in concluding that you do not know how argumentation proceeds or how logic can help you.

After explaining twice how I might go about solving the homeless problem, you repeat the question. So you're not even reading my answers or responding to them.

Your comments on the homeless are assertions that I've asked you to support with evidence. You cite yourself as an authority, but your personal observations cannot be extrapolated into generalizations about the homeless. That is a basic tenet of argumentation, not something I made up on the spot. And a philosophy forum is all about proper argumentation.

On the one hand, you claim to be concerned about the homeless. On the other, your rhetoric is exactly what one hears on the most hateful of talk radio programs, the ones for which the homeless are merely objects of derision. You're just shilling for some extremist ideology and promoting yourself in service of it. You don't give a flip about the homeless and you said as much in describing your book. You can't even cite any studies of the problem.

Again, you're using this group to promote yourself and your book, not to promote critical thinking about the homeless. Please keep in mind that this is a philosophy group, not a rant 'n rave political forum.

You are expected to support your assertions with evidence and to argue in good faith. If you do not know how, there is a folder entitled Logic and Argumentation where you can ask questions. That's what the group is about. If you're not willing to do even that, there are thousands of groups where people can scream away at each other all day, and your own overwrought appeals to fear and hatred might be better suited to them.

Nanette wrote: "I am amazed that crack cocaine is not something to avoid in your mind. Do you know what crack addicts do to those around them? "

I didn't ever say that, and if it looks as though I did, I miswrote. What I believe is that people have the right to make even bad choices. I would never use crack cocaine, and if one of my children thought about trying it I would use every ability I have to dissuade them. BUT, if they were determined to do it, I would have to let them, because in the end it's their life, not mine.

I would love to see nobody ever use crack. I do have a fairly good sense of what it can do to people. I support any education programs which will persuade people that using it is NOT in their best interests.

But in the end, if that's what they choose to do with their lives, I don't see it as my (or society's role) to prevent them by force of the gun.

That it's illegal means that society is not as protective of personal rights as I am. Society has no problem taking away people's rights to make even choices that directly affect only them. I realize there may be some indirect effects on society, but that's the case with every choice; even my choice to read a book has societal consequence, though I hope far more benign than using crack.

That said, though, let's be clear that I do think that society has the right, perhaps even the obligation, to impose penalties when personal actions impose too great a burden on others. Being under the influence of a self-administered substance is no excuse for harming others, whether intentionally or not.

But if people can choose to use crack, or marijuana, or heroin, or whatever, and not violate other peoples' rights, I say let them.

A better option to our present system is to legalize these substances and provide safe places for those who want to use them to use them.