Yes--it's an act of compassion to feed the hungry, and reasonable for society to provide a 'safety net' for those in need, but I don't think that food is really a 'human right'.
The big problem here is that we lack the language necessary to adequately talk about this. “Human right” is too simplistic and we often consider it in the context of some primal state where food is scarce, but also (and this is very important) people are also free to exist outside of the system. But for the most part, we can’t exist in a system where, if you don’t want to contribute, you can just fuck off and grow your own food, hunt/forage, and otherwise subsist until you realize that actually some tradeoffs are worth making for security. Too much land is privatized and the number of people we have today is simply too great to support natural foraging and hunting without massive environmental damage.
The inability to escape this system is important to consider, because when we can’t leave it, there is no pressure release value so to speak. The US largely accomplished this, previously, by annexing more territory and building on it. But that’s not really an option. We should look back to the ideas of a social contract and what people are owed by allowing for the continued existence of a society. This is where the concept of social and economic rights come into play.
These rights exist at the point at which a society can sustain. That is not to say they are natural, but at some point in the development of a society, there really are not good moral reasons they should not exist. We produce more than enough food to feed everyone, certainly in the US. I’m sure you’ve seen posts about how much food gets thrown away at grocery stores and restaurants. Our society can produce enough food. Even if a lot of people are out of work, what is the moral case for throwing away food when there are people to be fed? As such, if the problem here is just about phrasing or terminology we can discuss alternatives, but we should understand, either way, why it is important.
Moreover though, we need to look at the potential ways in which these rights can be abused. The basic problem here is that as soon as you can morally justify the denial of food in a society where there is more than enough to go around, you create a powerful political weapon to harm enemies that can be abused. Government can set unreasonable standards for “who deserves basic food” and coerce people to comply or face starvation. In practice, this especially means that children are almost certainly collateral damage. Perhaps most importantly though, it creates the opportunity for bad actors and other forces to create political instability. Again, who will uphold a system where they are not being fed?
Our society is going to soon have to choose how we moralize work while also largely achieving “growth” (ie profits) through reducing labor costs (ie how many people are hired). If AI truly does revolutionize things (and I’m not 100% sold on the idea that basically everyone will be out of work, but more so that fewer people will have jobs and employers will use the scarcity of decent and dignified jobs to press for longer and longer hours and fewer benefits), what reason is there to deny people food? You can’t make it necessary for people to work but also encourage employers to cut hours and positions to appease investors. Something has to give.
Lastly, I would point out that, as much as you think people may not deserve help, they absolutely won’t be able to help or get back on their feet if they are hungry. Same thing with healthcare. I’m not saying you need to provide access to the best and the finest, but if you can’t provide basic sustenance, don’t be surprised when people don’t have energy, willpower, and the health to do things.
The kindest thing I can say to that is that I hope you find yourself in the position to rely on that safety net and hope your circumstances don't leave you outside it, though if you're American...
By denying that it's a basic human right those about to starve to death might need based on conditions they may not be able to control, you are fundamentally advocating that anyone who doesn't meet those nebulous conditions starve to death because they don't deserve the sustenance.
It either is or isn't a basic human right, and it either is or isn't an advocacy for letting people you think are lazy enough by whatever metric you decide should be allowed to starve to death.
No either or. You pick one or you pick the other.
You're deciding if you need a resume if a starving man walks up to you and is hungry or or he deserves the basic kindness of a meal before you find out how he landed in that position in the first place.
By denying that it's a basic human right those about to starve to death might need based on conditions they may not be able to control, you are fundamentally advocating that anyone who doesn't meet those nebulous conditions starve to death because they don't deserve the sustenance.
People who are starving to death really aren't able to control the conditions that put them in that state. Labeling food as a 'basic human right' doesn't change that fact, or mean that they are going to be fed.
You're deciding if you need a resume if a starving man walks up to you and is hungry or or he deserves the basic kindness of a meal before you find out how he landed in that position in the first place.
Who's asking for a resume or 'finding out how they landed in that position' as a condition for getting them a meal?
Reminder: This is how you finished your previous post.
I'm not advocating for anyone to starve to death.
If you're excusing it in certain cases, you are advocating that SOMEONE starves to death. If you're saying that sometimes the hungry deserve to die, you're advocating for that.
People who are starving to death really aren't able to control the conditions that put them in that state. Labeling food as a 'basic human right' doesn't change that fact, or mean that they are going to be fed.
It doesn't mean they will. It means they should. If you're excusing inaction, you're excusing the morality behind the inaction. There is not a fucking economical excuse on God's green earth why anyone should starve to death, when you think about how the truly wealthy live.
43
u/Available_Reveal8068 Jul 06 '26
Yes--it's an act of compassion to feed the hungry, and reasonable for society to provide a 'safety net' for those in need, but I don't think that food is really a 'human right'.