Category: Let's talk
Howdy folks,
I'm looking at a small course, free to anyone, in philosophy, from the Open University.
In it a few questions are raised, which I'd like to have your oppinions on. The scenarios are:
OOO! These are fun.
A government compels its citizens to save for their retirement, on the grounds that this is in their own long-term interest.
This is one I'm not honestly sure what I think about the issue. Maybe that government should give them the option but not force them to use it.
A government prevents its citizens from accessing foreign news broadcasts, on the grounds that they will be corrupted by them.
I think this to be utterly unacceptable. And if you look at human nature, telling people "you can't watch this," often times has the opposite affect. People are thinking creatures. It's what seperates us from other life forms on the planet. (We can debate dolphins later.) :)
A person with strong and highly unusual sexual desires is forced to receive psychiatric treatment in order to help them live a normal life.
What is normal? Who is to define it? I certainly think that if someone wants treatment they should be able to receive it, but forcing people to have their personality changed because they don't conform to a standard of "normalcy" is the beginning of a very slippery slope. Who'll they try to make conform next? And different people have different levels of "sexual desire." Someone's going to have to be at both ends of the spectrum. Provided they aren't causing harm to others, it's no one's business but their own if they want "treatment."
A homeless person is taken off the streets against her will and put into supported social housing, on the grounds that her quality of life will be better
What's with the specifying of gender in this question as opposed to the other questions? And more or lesss my answer to the last question applies here. They should certainly be given the option to enter this program. It sounds like it could be a good thing. But they shouldn't be forced to.
May be I am approaching this, not from a philosophical but more of a macro economic or social point of view. The role of the government is, as I see it, to try and uphold law and protect their citizens and society from harm, but also to insure a basic quality of life for all, through means of laws and regulations as well as encouraging behavior, with that in mind:
1. Government can, and should, insure that basic quality of life for all at an old age, they could inforce it through taxation or mandatory savings (it basically comes down to the same thing, more or less). I think the government should make very minimum savings mandatory but then encourage people and let them have a choice of how much they want to save additionally. It's not fair e.g. if I make a million dollars between now and 50 and choose to spend all of it, then I retire at 51 and need special care, now if I spent it all on alcohol and travelling the money to care for me comes out of taxes that other people pay or their savings, if I saved up 5 million of the 10 million before turning 50 I'd get same care but would have to pay for it by not having the enjoyment beforehand. It's ok to have some differences in quality of care and they are worth something to ya, but government must basically ensure that everyone that can contribute to the basic care does so.
2. In general I'd say no, but there could be cultural issues, may be, or propaganda, but who is to seperate that from "a different point of view" the spread and sharing of information is our key to thinking and survival as a speecies.
3. Again, it comes down to the government's role to protect its citizens, if said sexual desire is harmful and violent or aimed at young kids, that person needs to be placed under supervision, more for the protection of others, of course, ideally, we'd find a cure, through medication or treatment, if possible, but if there's no other choice locking the person away seems to be a reasonable solution.
4. Again the same answer really. The government may act to protect others or the person him/herself, kif being on the streets places yourself or someone else in danger the government has the right and, some say, the duty to step in to correct the situation. But it all depends on the exact definition of the government's role and influence. Should it ban smoking, drugs, guns, alcohol (all these things are, or can be, harmful to us)?
Interesting. Well:
1. I personally think that saving for your retirement should be compulsory. But that needs to come with some conditions, because not everyone is in the same position to be able to save for their retirement.
So I would say that yes, saving for your retirement should be compulsory, but that that should be done at source, ie pention contributions should be taken from your salary, in the same way as tax/national insurance are, and that employers should be highly motivated to match those contributions (this would be a tax break for the employers so would be a good insentive for them to do so.
Also, currently things like being able to get a place in a decent care home are based on your ability to pay, and if you have property/money you essentially have to sell it in order to pay for your long-term care if you need it. This seems unfair, as it doesn’t offer insentive to people to save for their retirement, so provision would have to be made to enable everyone to access the same level of care, not just those that can afford it. And given the higher earners will have paid the highest amount of tax into the system, they should not have to then be made to pay again just because they had the good fortune to earn well during their working lives.
2. No government should have the right to sensor what people do/don’t access, so long as what they do access isn’t illegal. Also, only offering up the local point of view on the news is hardly balanced.
3. it depends on the sexual desires in question and the means by which these are acted out. Anyone who is guilty of paedophilia/any other acts that are illegal/harmful to others should of course be held to account for those actions. If those actions are not hurting anyone else, then I partly agree that the individual should be left alone. However, there is maybe an argument that someone exhibiting such extraordinary behaviour runs the risk of ostrosizing themselves from society and maybe they should be forced to get help for their own sake, in the same way as someone with a mental illness should get help.
4. If a homeless person wants to live on the streets should that be up to them? Hmmm well actually I’m not so sure about that. Every year hundreds of people die on the streets because of the cold/attacks by others/drug addiction etc, and ultimately it is the taxpayer that carries the burden of having to deal with that. There are countless charities that look after the homeless, but they only provide minimum support, and for that they have to go on massive fund-raising drives. In a society where people are entitled to benefits and housing if they absolutely have no-where to go, I do not see why people need to be homeless, and if they choose that lifestyle, I don’t see why this should be supported.