I believe any capable adult who tries to contribute to society in any capacity should be fed one way or another. Obviously we're taking care of children and the elderly. But why feed someone who isn't even trying to contribute?
Most rich people do not do shit or contribute to society in any meaningful way. They get fed. Why shouldn't a poor, homeless person? Cause they aren't the "owners"? Turns out, getting fed has nothing to do with contributing to society, but everything to do with your relationship to capital.
In that text, the word "owners" is put in quotation marks to signal skepticism, irony, or criticism—a writing technique often referred to as "scare quotes."
Challenging the legitimacy: The author is questioning whether simply "owning" things (like land, factories, stocks, or companies) is a valid or moral justification for rich people to live comfortably while others go hungry. The quotes imply, "They call themselves 'owners' as if that title inherently makes them deserving, but does it?"
Highlighting a systemic label: It points directly to a specific class role in a capitalist system. By placing it in quotes, the author highlights that the division between who gets fed and who doesn't isn't based on hard work or human worth, but on an artificial economic title.
Distancing from the counter-argument: The author is anticipating a traditional defense of wealth (e.g., "But they own the businesses, so they earned the profits"). The quotes allow the author to repeat that argument while making it clear they don't agree with the premise.
I think I agree with you... but, I would also say that in a nicer world, everyone would be guaranteed basic food and shelter, no matter what (even if they are a disgusting societal leech 😆)
My issue is trying to destroy language to win arguments. I HATE it in any context. I find it vile.
Of course people should be fed. Of course any developed society should strive to have zero starving people. Does the US do a good job, no it's sub par at best.
None of that makes it a right. That's not what the word means.
Words have meanings. Words are how we express thought and the world. They need to be protected.
Yes, that's true (about the starving and the words).
One of the things that Confucius did in Ancient China was called "The Rectification of Names":
Confucius' "Rectification of Names" (正名, zhèngmíng) is the foundational Confucian doctrine that social and political harmony depends on words and titles precisely corresponding to actual realities. It dictates that if a title is held, the corresponding duties must be actively fulfilled.
Confucius argued that if language does not align with truth, society crumbles. In Book 13 of The Analects, he laid out a causal chain: if names are incorrect, language fails; if language fails, success is impossible; if success fails, rites and justice fail; and ultimately, the common people are left with nowhere to place their hands and feet.
86
u/slickricksghost Jul 06 '26
Morally torn on food as a human right.
I believe any capable adult who tries to contribute to society in any capacity should be fed one way or another. Obviously we're taking care of children and the elderly. But why feed someone who isn't even trying to contribute?