Logical debate on the right to pension

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Aug 27, 2019.

  1. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Many people think that retirement after a professional career opens the right to pension. However, what should be the basis for it exactly?

    Thank you to try and contribute to untangle this issue through formal logical argument and only through formal logical argument.
    A post in this thread has to offer one and only one argument at a time, for example:

    Joe lives in this country;
    Anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme;
    Therefore, Joe should benefit for this country's pension scheme.​

    You can't comment on, or reply to, other posters' arguments, but you can post alternative, modified, or redacted, arguments. To do so, you can re-use or re-cycle other posters' ideas, by referencing the origin of a premise or a conclusion.

    Joe lives in this country; (Jeeves)
    Anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)
    Therefore, Joe should benefit for the pension scheme.​

    Start with a short and straightforward argument. Don't try to make it a full thesis from the start.
    When you think somebody else's premise is false, you can use its negation in your own argument:

    Not anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (not wegs)​

    When you think somebody's premise may be true but needs justification, you can offer an argument with this premise as its conclusion.

    (...)
    Therefore, anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)​

    If you don't know how to justify it, use a dummy premise:

    (Premise)
    Therefore, anyone living in this country should benefit from its pension scheme; (wegs)​

    Use the proper American or English vocabulary (retirement plan, pension scheme etc.)
    Use the right term to express the notion you have in mind: "retirement plan" or "retirement savings plan"?
    I will only intervene to keep the debate going smoothly and conclude. After which you will be able to comment.

    Thanks to all.
    EB
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,400
    Jeeves - why are our names being used for these illustrations? lol
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    The "right" to a pension may seem legitimate on face value. But considering the many circumstances and such that can befall any individual, in actual fact, a pension is a logical outcome of a just and fair society, for those that upon retirement find themselves in dire predicament.
    In my country, pensions are rightly means tested...quite generously means tested I might add, but means tested just the same, and as it really should be.
    Personally, I don't receive any pension due to my circumstances, and I accept that.
    What really should be an undeniable right for any person in a just society, is access to required medical and hospital needs if and when needed. Thankfully, I am part of a society where that right was firmly established by Australia's greatest ever PM in 1972.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page