4 ms·

Because I'm not making money off of her. Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open. Since

Because I'm not making money off of her. Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open. Since I'm more utilitarian and I don't take Copenhagen as my moral axiom, we'll obviously disagree. Now we understand why.

coldtea 11y ago
>Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open. I don't appeal to any such BS. The so called "Copenhagen theory of ethics" is an ill-thought neologism of the writer of the blog post, and lacks several metric tons of nuances and considerations. The basic premise -- that a third-party has the same "moral obligation" to pay her maternity leave as the person who employeed her, made money of her (the total balanace was positive on THEIR side, not hers) and fired her when she become pregnant, is absurd. Not only that, but protections against firing an employee that became pregnant are an accepted part of the legal and moral obligations of an employee, enforced by law in most developed countries. If anything the burden of proof is on the author of TFA to counter the thinking of all those legislators. I would also like to know how a deal like "I'll give you food everyday for having sex with you" to a poor woman who hates the idea, but is starving and thus accepts it, is any different than the situations lauded by the author of TFA article. After all the woman is better off, right? She would be starving or even dead from hunger. And she accepted the deal by her own volition.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Because I'm not making money off of her. "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more." To summarize your post: I subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics, but don't call it that! I have no moral objection to prostitution. I also have no moral objection to "I'll give you money everyday for cleaning my house" to a poor person who hates cleaning.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >I have no moral objection to prostitution. I also have no moral objection to "I'll give you money everyday for cleaning my house" to a poor person who hates cleaning. Do you have moral objections to anything, then, or do you think that as the necessary money have been exchanged everything is OK? Also do you think that "voluntary agreement" means the same for everybody in every financial situation?
- shasta 11y ago
  Your attitudes are common and somewhat align with the way things work today, but I think everyone would be better off if society viewed the market as just an efficient medium for exchange and took more direct responsibility for the welfare of the poor rather than foisting those responsibilities on arbitrary economic transactions. The market already has a mechanism in place to determine price by balancing supply and demand. Markets have problems, like big players and lack of information, but this basic price determination mechanism is great when it works. Also, I think it's best to pick a different example than prostitution because of the importance of cultural factors there. Instead, what if I offer $20 to a poor person to let me slap them hard in the face? That might be a good deal for them, but I'm still a jerk for doing it. The problem though isn't that the transaction is exploitative. It's that it's wasteful. Why did the poor person need to endure the slap? What was the point?
  - pron 11y ago
    > rather than foisting those responsibilities on arbitrary economic transactions Transactions are never arbitrary. They're an action taken by individuals based on their interests, and their interests are determined by their values, and their values are often shaped -- at least to some degree -- by communal values. > but this basic price determination mechanism is great when it works How do you know when it works? Obviously, there is difference of opinion in determining what "works" means. > Instead, what if I offer $20 to a poor person to let me slap them hard in the face? That might be a good deal for them, but I'm still a jerk for doing it. The problem though isn't that the transaction is exploitative. It's that it's wasteful. OK, that's a classic.
- philh 11y ago
  > the total balanace was positive on THEIR side, not hers It was positive on both of their sides. They made money from the fruits of her labor, and she made money from the money that they gave her in exchange. Employment is positive sum. Just because one party benefits from a transaction, doesn't mean someone else lost out.
pron 11y ago
"The Copenhagen theory of ethics" isn't a thing. It is an attempt of the author to ridicule a nuanced and rich ethics which he (I can only assume it's a he, but it seems like a safe bet) doesn't understand and doesn't seem to want to understand. Instead of asking why some people react in a way he doesn't understand, he assumes they're idiots and makes fun of them. Any system which is complex enough because it's a result of careful study of a complex system such as our society, can seem absurd to someone who doesn't wish to understand it, and because they can't see the complexity -- for lack of study -- think that their simple (simplistic) approach is superior. Obviously improving things even a little is better than not improving them at all. People just disagree whether what the author sees as a clear improvement is in fact so -- that's why you and the GP disagree. Also, a nuanced ethical view may support a an action that improves things while at the same time note (and accept as the lesser evil) an ethical problem with it. No one says that any desired (or "good") action must be ethically perfect. Even moralists know how to compromise sometimes, even though they do so with protest. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. > Since I'm more utilitarian and I don't take Copenhagen as my moral axiom You and the article's author seem to subscribe to what ethicists call the "non-worseness claim". I found a discussion of this claim here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#4 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#4
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's very much a thing. Coldtea explicitly said he's not responsible for the pregnant woman "because I'm not making money off of her", implying that if he were to observe/interact with her he would be responsible. Retra did the same thing. That's by definition the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics. If you want to make a different argument that does not depend on the Copenhagen interpretation, go for it. The fact that you can make a different argument doesn't mean that others (e.g. coldtea) aren't using Copenhagen.
  - pron 11y ago
    > It's very much a thing. The author states his definition as "the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it." No one subscribes to that ethics, hence it's not a thing (anywhere outside's the author's distorted view of others, that is). OTOH, saying that the level of your responsibility for another individual may correlate with the benefit they give you (e.g. you make a profit) seems like a reasonable thing. It seems quite reasonable to believe that our responsibility towards the other may increase if 1/ we somehow contributed to their misfortune, 2/ if we somehow benefit from it, or 3/ if we benefit from them in any way at all. Each of these may of course increase the responsibility by different amounts. Points 2 and 3 seem like a natural conclusion of the ideal of fairness and reciprocity. Your contribution to the good of others should be commensurate with their contribution to yours. > Coldtea explicitly said he's not responsible for the pregnant woman "because I'm not making money off of her", implying that if he were to observe/interact with her he would be responsible. No, that's what you explicitly said when you tried hard to not understand other people's arguments. coldtea said no such thing. coldtea said that they wouldn't pay for the woman's maternity leave, not that their responsibility towards her is nil. coldtea's level of responsibility simply does not reach the point of owing her maternity leave.

coldtea 11y ago

>Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open. I don't appeal to any such BS. The so called "Copenhagen theory of ethics" is an ill-thought neologism of the writer of the blog post, and lacks several metric tons of nuances and considerations. The basic premise -- that a third-party has the same "moral obligation" to pay her maternity leave as the person who employeed her, made money of her (the total balanace was positive on THEIR side, not hers) and fired her when she become pregnant, is absurd. Not only that, but protections against firing an employee that became pregnant are an accepted part of the legal and moral obligations of an employee, enforced by law in most developed countries. If anything the burden of proof is on the author of TFA to counter the thinking of all those legislators. I would also like to know how a deal like "I'll give you food everyday for having sex with you" to a poor woman who hates the idea, but is starving and thus accepts it, is any different than the situations lauded by the author of TFA article. After all the woman is better off, right? She would be starving or even dead from hunger. And she accepted the deal by her own volition.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Because I'm not making money off of her. "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more." To summarize your post: I subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics, but don't call it that! I have no moral objection to prostitution. I also have no moral objection to "I'll give you money everyday for cleaning my house" to a poor person who hates cleaning.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >I have no moral objection to prostitution. I also have no moral objection to "I'll give you money everyday for cleaning my house" to a poor person who hates cleaning. Do you have moral objections to anything, then, or do you think that as the necessary money have been exchanged everything is OK? Also do you think that "voluntary agreement" means the same for everybody in every financial situation?
shasta 11y ago
Your attitudes are common and somewhat align with the way things work today, but I think everyone would be better off if society viewed the market as just an efficient medium for exchange and took more direct responsibility for the welfare of the poor rather than foisting those responsibilities on arbitrary economic transactions. The market already has a mechanism in place to determine price by balancing supply and demand. Markets have problems, like big players and lack of information, but this basic price determination mechanism is great when it works. Also, I think it's best to pick a different example than prostitution because of the importance of cultural factors there. Instead, what if I offer $20 to a poor person to let me slap them hard in the face? That might be a good deal for them, but I'm still a jerk for doing it. The problem though isn't that the transaction is exploitative. It's that it's wasteful. Why did the poor person need to endure the slap? What was the point?
- pron 11y ago
  > rather than foisting those responsibilities on arbitrary economic transactions Transactions are never arbitrary. They're an action taken by individuals based on their interests, and their interests are determined by their values, and their values are often shaped -- at least to some degree -- by communal values. > but this basic price determination mechanism is great when it works How do you know when it works? Obviously, there is difference of opinion in determining what "works" means. > Instead, what if I offer $20 to a poor person to let me slap them hard in the face? That might be a good deal for them, but I'm still a jerk for doing it. The problem though isn't that the transaction is exploitative. It's that it's wasteful. OK, that's a classic.
philh 11y ago
> the total balanace was positive on THEIR side, not hers It was positive on both of their sides. They made money from the fruits of her labor, and she made money from the money that they gave her in exchange. Employment is positive sum. Just because one party benefits from a transaction, doesn't mean someone else lost out.

pron 11y ago

"The Copenhagen theory of ethics" isn't a thing. It is an attempt of the author to ridicule a nuanced and rich ethics which he (I can only assume it's a he, but it seems like a safe bet) doesn't understand and doesn't seem to want to understand. Instead of asking why some people react in a way he doesn't understand, he assumes they're idiots and makes fun of them. Any system which is complex enough because it's a result of careful study of a complex system such as our society, can seem absurd to someone who doesn't wish to understand it, and because they can't see the complexity -- for lack of study -- think that their simple (simplistic) approach is superior. Obviously improving things even a little is better than not improving them at all. People just disagree whether what the author sees as a clear improvement is in fact so -- that's why you and the GP disagree. Also, a nuanced ethical view may support a an action that improves things while at the same time note (and accept as the lesser evil) an ethical problem with it. No one says that any desired (or "good") action must be ethically perfect. Even moralists know how to compromise sometimes, even though they do so with protest. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. > Since I'm more utilitarian and I don't take Copenhagen as my moral axiom You and the article's author seem to subscribe to what ethicists call the "non-worseness claim". I found a discussion of this claim here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#4 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#4

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's very much a thing. Coldtea explicitly said he's not responsible for the pregnant woman "because I'm not making money off of her", implying that if he were to observe/interact with her he would be responsible. Retra did the same thing. That's by definition the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics. If you want to make a different argument that does not depend on the Copenhagen interpretation, go for it. The fact that you can make a different argument doesn't mean that others (e.g. coldtea) aren't using Copenhagen.
- pron 11y ago
  > It's very much a thing. The author states his definition as "the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it." No one subscribes to that ethics, hence it's not a thing (anywhere outside's the author's distorted view of others, that is). OTOH, saying that the level of your responsibility for another individual may correlate with the benefit they give you (e.g. you make a profit) seems like a reasonable thing. It seems quite reasonable to believe that our responsibility towards the other may increase if 1/ we somehow contributed to their misfortune, 2/ if we somehow benefit from it, or 3/ if we benefit from them in any way at all. Each of these may of course increase the responsibility by different amounts. Points 2 and 3 seem like a natural conclusion of the ideal of fairness and reciprocity. Your contribution to the good of others should be commensurate with their contribution to yours. > Coldtea explicitly said he's not responsible for the pregnant woman "because I'm not making money off of her", implying that if he were to observe/interact with her he would be responsible. No, that's what you explicitly said when you tried hard to not understand other people's arguments. coldtea said no such thing. coldtea said that they wouldn't pay for the woman's maternity leave, not that their responsibility towards her is nil. coldtea's level of responsibility simply does not reach the point of owing her maternity leave.