[aslkfjhskjfhadk]

>Your entire point rests on the implicit moral premise that the "worth" of a human should determined by their ability to produce utility for society.

If we are to measure the worth of a person the value that they contribute to society is the most obvious way.

A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing. People don't deserve things for existing. They are given a chance to contribute and if they fail to take advantage of that chance they are not rewarded.

The belief that everyone, despite the decisions that they have made over the course of their life should be treated, rewarded, and respected equally is abhorrent.

The ideology you are promoting would have a wife and child beater be treated equally to a doctor.

[aninhumer]

>A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing. People don't deserve things for existing.

Well thank you for being honest enough that I don't feel the need to argue against you. Your hostility towards humanity speaks for itself.

>The ideology you are promoting would have a wife and child beater be treated equally to a doctor.

And the ideology you are promoting would have the disabled murdered for being unproductive. And indeed, it already has.

[aslkfjhskjfhadk]

>And the ideology you are promoting would have the disabled murdered for being unproductive. And indeed, it already has.

Don't put words into my mouth. I don't promote punishing people for not being contributing members of society I promote not rewarding them.

Your ideology promotes punishing success and rewarding idleness and stupidity. The world needs more intelligent people and society should work to reward positive traits.

[aninhumer]

>I don't promote punishing people for not being contributing members of society I promote not rewarding them.

Punishment and reward are relative in a connected economy. If you think that "A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing." then you are proposing their murder via starvation.

>Your ideology promotes punishing success and rewarding idleness and stupidity.

My moral premise is the society should strive for the creation of the greatest utility for humanity. Withholding utility from some group humans, for whatever reason, directly harms that goal.

It can be argued that an unequal allocation of resources to individuals creates more overall utility by creating incentives, and I'm receptive to that argument, although I don't agree with it.

But arguing that the less productive individuals deserve less means your moral premise is no longer about creating the greatest utility, it's about creating utility for those you deem worthy.

[aslkfjhskjfhadk]

>Punishment and reward are relative in a connected economy. If you think that "A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing." then you are proposing their murder via starvation.

Look I'm not arguing against your imagined dystopia and I'm not a radical like you are. People in society are charitable and do provide basic needs for those that can't earn enough to feed themselves.

>My moral premise is the society should strive for the creation of the greatest utility for humanity. Withholding utility from some group humans, for whatever reason, directly harms that goal.

Your statement is factually incorrect. If we are to say that utility as you say is money then intelligent people are better at allocating resources than intelligent people. An intelligent person that is a good investor will invest in technology that they can leverage to create more.

If an intelligent person is given a significant amount of money because of their contributions to society, and then this person uses that money to create a new technology, utility has already exceeded the case where the less intelligent person and the more intelligent person are given the same amount of money.

>It can be argued that an unequal allocation of resources to individuals creates more overall utility by creating incentives, and I'm receptive to that argument, although I don't agree with it.

Ignoring rewards unequal allocation of resources gives those that can make better use of resources more.

>But arguing that the less productive individuals deserve less means your moral premise is no longer about creating the greatest utility, it's about creating utility for those you deem worthy.

It's not about who "I" deem worthy. I don't promote a central authority ran by me that ranks people and rewards people based on their worth. I promote allowing people to use the resources they have access to as they see fit and if the vast majority of society believes it's correct to give all their money to one person due to that person's contribution to society I believe we shouldn't interfere in that process.

[aninhumer]

> I don't promote a central authority ran by me that ranks people and rewards people based on their worth.

I'm not talking about the system. I'm talking about your morality. If you say "A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing." then you are making a moral statement that deems that person less worthy.

My premise is that all people are equally worthy of a good life. If distributing resources unequally helps everyone to have better lives through greater productivity then that is a justified utilitarian decision. But calling that pragmatic decision morality, and saying that people are "worth" more or less as a result, is what I object to.

And to address your points about "wife beaters", since you seem to think they are more obviously "less worthy" than others: No, I still think they are equally worthy of living good lives. They should be prevented from harming people, and if that requires a worse quality of life (i.e. as a result of imprisonment) then that is justified. But punishment for punishment's sake is just turning harm into even more harm.

[facetube]

You are conflating IQ with criminality. These people live and exist and breathe and eat and occupy space. Where are you going to put all the bodies when you're done?

[stcredzero]

You are conflating IQ with criminality.

IIRC, there is a high correlation with those who get caught in certain kinds of crime and IQ.

[facetube]

Got a peer-reviewed source?

[MagnumOpus]

Massively widely studied and corroborated. Google-scholar it and knock yourself out. Some examples:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008043...

http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1993-29924-001

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-21525-001

[facetube]

Welcome to HN, where you get downvoted for asking for a citation, and then downvoted again because you're not allowed to complain about the moronic retaliatory downvoting.

[aslkfjhskjfhadk]

Please take my comment within the context of the comment I was replying to.

>You can argue that inequality is necessary to create incentives. I don't personally believe that's true, but I understand the argument as a reasonable moral position. But to argue that some people are morally worth more than others is to discard the very notion of human equality.

This statement is a twisted idea of equality. People are born equal but they do not remain equal. A doctor is not equal to wife beater.

[facetube]

Lower than average intelligence does not cause people to become "wife beaters". The lack of emotional intelligence on display in this whole comments section is deeply and painfully ironic.

[aslkfjhskjfhadk]

>Lower than average intelligence does not cause people to become "wife beaters". The lack of emotional intelligence on display in this whole comments section is deeply and painfully ironic.

Jesus christ, are you capable of reading? I never suggested

> Lower than average intelligence does not cause people to become "wife beaters"

[dang]

We've banned this account for taking the thread into flamewar and incivility. When people create accounts to do this we eventually ban their main account as well, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[facetube]

You said it twice.

This is what lack of emotional intelligence looks like. If you can't figure out how what you typed could be interpreted in this way by others, I feel very badly for you.

[dang]

It isn't ok to break the site guidelines just because someone else did. Please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here.