"Others-have-it-worse-than-you"-fallacy

[philosopher]

I'm growing very much tired of the same sentence political opponents use against me:

"Other people have it worse than you".
"We are lucky to live in our country and not in some war-torn place like Syria".

It implies that because others have it worse then you or me, we should not strive for embetterment of our own lives or political systems at home.
It implies that we should be humble and eternally thankful and btw. never question our politicians or the governmental system, the welfare state or anything else.

Well, I'd say it is a logical fallacy to adopt the "others-have-it-worse-so-we-need-not-have-it-better".

Please answer this simple question:

How can it be a bad thing to improve your life, so long it does not make others lives worse,
and furthermore: How can a human being have it "too good"?

[QuantumT]

I believe intelligence and ingenuity should be rewarded.
There has been modern humans on Earth for atleast 300,000 years, and yet many of them still live like it's 10,000 BC.
There's an old danish saying that goes: You lie in the bed you made yourself.

So, never ever feel that you don't deserve the good things in your life, or that you don't deserve more! You do!

[Skip]

How can it be a bad thing to improve your life, so long it does not make others lives worse,

In fact, you can turn their own argument back on them: A rising tide floats all boats.
They use it to pretend that whatever is good for" business" or "the job-creators" - by which they mean the wealthy, including those who exploit employees, destroy and export jobs, and those who produce nothing, but grow wealthy on amassing real estate, or on usury or tax-dodging and or government bailout - is incidentally good for their workers and tenants.
You can use the same slogan, more honestly and accurately by proposing the improve the lot of those poorer and less privileged than you are, along with those of your own class.

and furthermore: How can a human being have it "too good"?

Like this: https://www.indy100.com/article/donald- ... le-7416171

[Walker]

Problems abhor a vacuum.

As suggested by recent celebrity suicides, if folks don't have any real problems (food, shelter, clothing), they will create some. Problems will rush in to fill the space empty of problems. Then, the problems either become the basis of friendships, in order to share stories of the problems, or the created problems become the cause of isolation and depression, and loss of perspective of what constitutes a real problem.

[-1-]

Problems abhor a vacuum.

As suggested by recent celebrity suicides, if folks don't have any real problems (food, shelter, clothing), they will create some. Problems will rush in to fill the space empty of problems. Then, the problems either become the basis of friendships, in order to share stories of the problems, or the created problems become the cause of isolation and depression, and loss of perspective of what constitutes a real problem.

Agreed.

To the OP: I've heard that argument a million times not by political opponents, but from kindergarten teachers, my aunt, teachers, bosses, neighbours, and my own conscience.

It is a horrible guilt trip, without any foundation, and I only woke up too late to ask the perpetrators, "what about you? Did you do something special to earn your spot, or you, like I, only won the random selection lottery?"

There is nothing to be ashamed for being lucky.

Much like there is nothing to be proud in living in a good country. I did not built htis country which is so good to me. But I don't fret any more how I don't deserve to be here. And if someone would ask me again, or lay that trip on me,... well, nobody has for the last 17 years, since my aunt died, come to think of it.

[Skip]

Good luck, good timing, maybe some helping hands along the way?
Nobody who has made it is entirely self-made.
Nobody who has it made is entirely debt-free.
When that tide comes in one place, it's going out in another; when some fortunes rise, others fall.
All those free lunches came out of somebody's pocket - and half of them don't even have pants.
Pay up!

[-1-]

Nobody who has it made is entirely debt-free.

Erm... are you talking personal finances, or personal ethics? I could understand both, but the wording is actually ambiguous.

[philosopher]

Argumentum ad Misericordiam

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/misery.html

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.

[Walker]

Nobody who has it made is entirely debt-free.

Erm... are you talking personal finances, or personal ethics? I could understand both, but the wording is actually ambiguous.

All creatures were, or will be your mother.
How can this be so?
The understanding is realized.

The philosophy is, pay where pay is due.

However, does shoveling your only precious life force into the insatiable maw of government taxation actually accomplish this?

Does writing a cheque to a charity with 90% administrative costs actually accomplish this?
(I heard that the Clinton’s were big givers to charity. One charity. The Clinton Foundation. Probably did that to dodge taxes due for payment for what must have been amazing speeches, at half-a-mil a pop, rates which have subsequently been reduced like a furniture store going-out-of-business sale.)

It’s like giving someone a treasure and then watching it wasted from neglect, lack of mindfulness, and the causes.

[Skip]

[Nobody who has it made is entirely debt-free.]

Erm... are you talking personal finances, or personal ethics? I could understand both, but the wording is actually ambiguous.

Neither. Both. More.
If you know much, it is because someone has taught you; because you had access to information that other people amassed.
If you succeeded in a career, it is because someone gave you opportunities; in business, someone gave you a loan.
If you succeed in the arts, someone, sometime appreciated your talent and applauded your effort.
If you survived to adulthood, someone nurtured and protected you.
The wording is ambiguous because you plucked it out of a somewhat fanciful paragraph.
No human being, plucked from a community of people, makes anything of himself.

[Skip]

The philosophy is, pay where pay is due.

However, does shoveling your only precious life force into the insatiable maw of government taxation actually accomplish this?

Contributing to the community does, yes. Very large civilizations are often ironically inefficient (ironically, because their size is what assures their longevity, versatility and diversity) in the allocation of resources, but far less unfair than private enterprise. They are often corrupt in their operation, but rarely malign in their intent.

Does writing a cheque to a charity with 90% administrative costs actually accomplish this?

Before signing, do a little research. Charities are necessary when governments fail - for whatever reason - to take care of their citizens. If you are against taxation and against charity, how will anyone be helped?

(I heard that the Clinton’s were big givers to charity. One charity. The Clinton Foundation. Probably did that to dodge taxes due for payment for what must have been amazing speeches, at half-a-mil a pop)(cheap shot edited.)

Then you've been listening to an inaccurate source.

One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity....Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation.... it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where ... -money-go/
Of course, not all foundations are alike
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06 ... on-lawsuit

[Walker]

Glad to look it up for you.
In the looking I see that big-time universities with monster endowments also receive the helping hand of Clinton charity.

My assertion is that the Clintons solicit for themselves, and give to themselves, and call it charity.
Do they do this exclusively? Of course not. Then their charity would be a sham, wouldn't it.

Check out the parts that I underlined. As you can see, the Clintons are their own charity, and personal charitable contributions receive tax benefits.

Two foundations, no doubt for transparency.

The Clinton Family Foundation, which is the charitable vehicle used by the Clintons for their personal giving, reported disbursements of just $395,000 to groups last year, a drastic decline from the $2,630,500 in 2015.

A major portion of the dip can be attributed to the fact that the Clintons did not pass money from the Clinton Family Foundation to the controversial Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton reported giving $1,042,000 to charity in 2015 on her income tax return. Of that amount, $1,000,000—or 96 percent—went to the Clinton Family Foundation. Once the money is parked in the Clinton Family Foundation, it is then disbursed to their charitable endeavors.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-cl ... ions-2016/

Q: How is a laundry like making sausage?
A: You don’t want to see how it’s done.

[henry quirk]

Eye of the beholder: from where I stand, whole whack of folks are way worse off than me, and a whole whack of folks are doin' way better than me.

All that can come from such observations is pity for one and envy for the other.

Me, I don't time for all that malarkey.

Best I can tell: the pitiful aren't worse off cuz of me, and the envied aren't better off at my expense, so...

...fuck 'em.

I'm not gonna hobble myself helpin', or erode myself chasin' after dreams that aren't mine.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I agree, as a kid it never really stuck with me. There are people who have it a lot better than me as well.

[-1-]

Nobody who has it made is entirely debt-free.

Erm... are you talking personal finances, or personal ethics? I could understand both, but the wording is actually ambiguous.

All creatures were, or will be your mother.
How can this be so?
The understanding is realized.

The philosophy is, pay where pay is due.

However, does shoveling your only precious life force into the insatiable maw of government taxation actually accomplish this?

Does writing a cheque to a charity with 90% administrative costs actually accomplish this?
(I heard that the Clinton’s were big givers to charity. One charity. The Clinton Foundation. Probably did that to dodge taxes due for payment for what must have been amazing speeches, at half-a-mil a pop, rates which have subsequently been reduced like a furniture store going-out-of-business sale.)

It’s like giving someone a treasure and then watching it wasted from neglect, lack of mindfulness, and the causes.

Thank you, walker, thank you,Skip, for the explanation.

The explanation is a bit reminiscent (or the other way around) of the Shakespearean adage, "The child is father to the man."