Earlier quoted context omitted.
,> There is actually a moral aspect here. Morals in society is that you work to earn your own living and that you don't abuse kindness. That is true, but it leaves out the question of who's morals we are discussing. If the recipient is not under any obligation, and yet gets a job, that morality is played out in them. If the person is under obligation and gets a job as a result, their moral position is unknown but lik…
In this case society is paying (out of moral principles) so this gives it a fair right to set the moral expectation or just the practical one. Let's say someone does not get a job. Are they looking for one and being unsuccessful or are they just cashing their benefits? Checks are needed in practice unless it can be shown they are not (what I suggested in my previous comments).
as far as I understand this entire conversation around ubi, that ideal isn’t the issue. Proponents rather hold that you cannot scale this to a society without the cost exceeding the benefit. The bureaucratic machine to sustain these rules inevitably becomes soulless, expensive, inefficient, and counter productive. Is the argument.
It’s not that we shouldn’t, it’s that, at scale, we can’t. Is the argument :)
I don’t think your statement on morals is necessarily incompatible with the practical considerations offered by others. It’s a different conversation.