My question was really whether everyone ought/could live at your quality of life. I'm assuming you live significantly above those basics. Whether society is capable of supporting that level of luxury for everyone, I'm less certain. From an ethical perspective, it's difficult for me to say what level of luxury people "ought" to have, because I personally can live with very little without my quality of life being affected. But necessity and luxury are temporally relative, so maybe the answer is "as much as civilisation is capable of providing." My fear is the Caves of Steel future, where most people live reasonably, but those who are unnecessary (or unwilling to work) are relegated to a "barracks" where the basic necessities are provided, but so meagre as to make life severely unpleasant.I think we ought to live in a society where anyone can have the basic comforts of life: shelter, food, healthcare
I completely agree. Though I wouldn't use the word "comforts." I also definitely think our civilisation is capable of supporting it, and what little research has been done suggests providing it will not be detrimental to industriousness.Everything beyond that is gravy and it's up to us as individuals to decide how much gravy we pursue.
Star Trek is probably my favorite socialist utopia. It's essentially what you're describing. On Earth, everyone is provided the basic living requirements. People work to find meaning or to earn luxuries like iPods and Holodeck Privileges, not to avoid starvation.
I would never suggest that anyone ought to live any specific way or at any specific "level" of comfort. As I said, there are many people that wouldn't like my quality of life for any number of reasons. I think beyond the basics, it's not governments duty to supply people with quality of life. However, the building blocks needed to provide such upward mobility: health, education and time need to be universally accessible. Here's hoping for Star Trek.