First of all, not everyone should work. Be it a child that lives off of his parents' money, a stay at home mom whose bills are paid by her husband, or a young, poor but promising artist who lives in an apperment from his mecenas.
BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. It sends a message to society: laziness pays.
Being for or against policy because of the "message" it sends has historically been a pretty bad idea.
Just look at the drug war, where we don't want to send the "message" to kids that drugs are OK.
There's no telling what incentives people will actually have once BI is implemented. Maybe they'll actually be more incentivised to seek risky and rewarding work because they have a guaranteed safety net.
If laziness and productivity pay the same BI (that's what a BI is), then it doesn't send a message to anyone in particular. A person with a BI can still gain more by working. The incentive is still there.
And that's what it is: an incentive, not a moral. It's not immoral to give people something that benefits them.
> BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing.
Consider that without enough money to live, people will not do nothing. They will steal and riot. Look at it this way: like other social programs, a BI can be thought of as a way for rich people to buy a more stable and peaceful society in which to live.
I think the concept of a BI is unnecessary and poorly thought-out, but it's not immoral.
BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. It sends a message to society: laziness pays.