It is quite a modern and widespread demagoguery - it will point to the elderly, families with young children or the sick and say something like: "it is right to help them," and therefore the state should support them. Supposedly because it's "humane and right."
Is it really humane and right?
Principles of humanism
For something to be humane, it must not logically be in conflict with the principles of humanity. Well, what are the principles of humanity?
They are simple: each person is unique and at the same time the same. Unique in his will, personality and form, the same in that he is human.
Therefore, there is no reason to discriminate against anyone because of their race or gender, but at the same time we cannot prohibit others from practicing discrimination.
"What is the benefit of a man who gains the whole world but loses or thwarts himself?"
- The Gospel of Luke
What good is everything we have and what we have achieved when we are dead? Useless. So human life has infinite value. However, we cannot forbid anyone to kill themselves if they so choose voluntarily. But we can persuade him not to do that.
In order to be able to treat this most precious thing — life — as best as possible, one needs freedom. Only a free decision is a voluntary decision, when the individual wants to achieve a better (subjective) state than he is in.
Humanism thus de facto rejects any violence. Violence is a disruption of voluntary, free life and decision-making. Because each person is unique, everyone has the right to live their life as they wish, to strive to achieve the goals they choose by the means they choose voluntarily. He has the right to evaluate on the basis of his opinions and does not have to (but can) take into account the opinions of others. He has the right to do as one sees fit. However, everyone also has the right to defend themselves against perceived violence and restrictions on power. An individual can defend against violence from someone else, others can defend against violence from an individual.
Everyone (whether they want to or not) will sooner or later face the effects of their actions. Responsibility is thus one of the pillars of humanism. A responsible person is also "humane."
Humanity is voluntariness!
Helping the weaker, the poorer and the more vulnerable is certainly respectable and humane, if it is a voluntary decision.
If a person claims to decide on your property without your voluntary consent, it is a robbery. Robbery is violence - it is an attempt to decide our past life, because our present property is the result of our actions (living) sometime in the past. And of course: even "a while ago" is a thing of the past.
The system of various social benefits is a system of "subsidies for people" - it is a robbery. Someone will take your money without asking you and decide on it for you. It is violence against your past. It doesn't matter how the robbery is defended. It's still a robbery. We can close our eyes on her - thanks to her defense - and tolerate her voluntarily. Considering it right that you want it to be so.
However, each human being is a unique creature - it is highly inhumane to say that "if I don't mind, it mustn't bother you either!" You have no right to speak for others unless the "others" - a certain group of people - have given you this right.
The fact that you want to pay contributions to the system of state social subsidies does not justify this system, if the state forces those who do not want to pay into this system to pay. It is not about helping the weak and helpless, but about using them for "political purposes." The weak and the sick are becoming the walking billboard of political parties.
There is nothing respectable, humane and right, because robbery is not respectable, humane and right. Those who subscribe to humanism and support (proclaim) these redistributive practices are false prophets, pseudo-humanists. He claims that something humane is that is completely contrary to the principles of humanism.
The state social system is inhumane. It is not right to rob other people.