Yes, but even if none of that was true it would still be the right thing to do. We shouldn’t have to justify humanitarian social policies by their national economic benefits.
Which is why i don’t like this type of argument. What happens when you run into a policy to help people that doesn’t have economic upsides, that is a drain on the national economy? By using this argument for morally correct social policies that happen to benefit the economy, you pre-emptively capitulate on those that don’t. What about policies supporting disabled people, for instance? Should they only be enacted so long as said disabled people can contribute to the national economy? A slippery slope towards eugenics…
Yes, but even if none of that was true it would still be the right thing to do. We shouldn’t have to justify humanitarian social policies by their national economic benefits.
Which is why i don’t like this type of argument. What happens when you run into a policy to help people that doesn’t have economic upsides, that is a drain on the national economy? By using this argument for morally correct social policies that happen to benefit the economy, you pre-emptively capitulate on those that don’t. What about policies supporting disabled people, for instance? Should they only be enacted so long as said disabled people can contribute to the national economy? A slippery slope towards eugenics…
@cfgaussian
I didn’t say any of that, don’t put words in my mouth.
If you want to convince the detractors you’re going the wrong way about it.
I agree with helping people for the right reasons but you’re not going to move anyone over to “your side” with that, are you?
You certainly won’t win them over by insulting them and assuming things.
It doesn’t HAVE to be economically productive, it just happens to be that it is and that dismisses the number one argument people use against it.