Deficit & Dependency II: The Dependency Argument

"The gist of the Dependency argument is that if people get assistance or benefits of a certain sort from the state, such as unemployment benefits or childcare, then they risk becoming dependent upon the state. Since this dependence is claimed to have negative consequences, such assistance and benefits should be limited or not provided. This can be seen as a utilitarian argument."

"For example, it might be contended that if unemployment benefits are too generous then people will not want to work. As a specific illustration, in April, 2020 Senator Lindsey Graham argued that public financial relief for the coronavirus would incentivize workers to leave their jobs. Other alleged harms include damage to the moral character of the recipients of such benefits and, on a larger scale, the creation of a culture of dependency and a culture of entitlement."

"One way is for a person to knowingly use fallacies or rhetoric as substitutes for good reasoning. Interestingly, a person can use fallacies and rhetoric in good faith when they do so unintentionally. In such cases, they are using bad logic in good faith. Another way is for a person to use premises they believe are untrue. Naturally, a person can make untrue claims in good faith; they do not realize their claims are untrue."

The Dependency argument claims that state-provided assistance such as unemployment benefits or childcare can make recipients dependent on the state. Proponents argue that such dependence produces negative consequences and therefore that assistance should be limited. Variations of the argument focus on specific harms, including reduced work incentives, damaged moral character, and the emergence of a culture of dependency or entitlement. Public examples include claims that coronavirus relief would incentivize workers to leave jobs. Evaluating the argument requires examining whether it is advanced in good faith and whether its logic and premises are sound.

Read at A Philosopher's Blog