5 ms·

Just because an act provides net value to a community does not mean it is ethical.

by duaneb 11y ago

tbrownaw 11y ago
So are you claiming that the tenants mentioned are somehow worse off than if those trailers weren't available for rent at all? For something to be unethical, someone has to be harmed by it, yes?
- danharaj 11y ago
  Is it so hard to grasp that local optimization does not necessarily lead to globally favorable conditions?
  - tbrownaw 11y ago
    So anything that's part of a system that isn't perfectly ideal is unethical now? There are certain constraints that any large-scale system made of people has to work under, for example the sort of things that make communism not work very well at scales larger than a small commune. Any localized parts of such a system, need to mesh properly with the larger system. Much that is demonized as "exploitative" (not all, but a lot of it), seems to only be considered as such because people look at the immediate imperfections, and disregard the problems that would result from attempting to "fix" those imperfections. I contend that the landlord mentioned is an example of this. You and the poster I initially replied to are providing no substantive arguments against this, but merely implying a lack of critical thought by anyone who doesn't stop their reasoning at the immediate local effects.
    - baddox 11y ago
      > So anything that's part of a system that isn't perfectly ideal is unethical now? I suspect that the commenter means that any sociopolitical system other than his or her preferred one is unethical, which is what anyone who makes moral arguments for sociopolitical systems (i.e. nearly everyone I have ever met) is implicitly claiming.
      - danharaj 11y ago
        What else would motivate someone to make an ethical argument besides thinking that the thing they oppose is unethical?
        baddox 11y ago
        Probably nothing. I'm just making this explicit, because people tend to not come right out and say "if you disagree with me then you're evil."
- duaneb 11y ago
  Ethics is not binary. It is ethical to provide shelter. It is more ethical to provide shelter without profiting. The landlord has expenses, including perhaps a vacation, but they should be minimized. I dont have much beef with the trailer park owner in question, but you are simplifying the variables at play. The net win for everyone would be providing shelter at absolute minimum cost, including for the people maintaining the trailers for others. A landlord's profits may stand in the way of this.
  - MichaelBurge 11y ago
    Similarly, employees should accept the bare minimum salary they need to live on(perhaps with a modest vacation). Anything above this is unethical, since they are now profiting off of their employer. In both cases, you are essentially condemning the person to stay in that position forever with no chance of advancement. It reminds me of the parable of the talents[1]; I tend to agree with its conclusion that the guy who manages 30 skyscrapers should be given this recently-built batch of 12 to manage, since he's already demonstrated competence. It's hard to make this actually happen if you take everything he has except a pittance, so his purchasing power is equal to that of somebody who has no business managing skyscrapers. [1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - duaneb 11y ago
      Why is advancement desirable? Giving people more responsibility when they prove they can handle it is one thing. It's entirely another to equate advancement with monetary compensation. In general, I believe people should be incentivized with responsibility, which is in everyone's interest. Cash compensation only benefits one person; doubly so when considering the rate of tax avoidance in the upper echelons of income.
      - MichaelBurge 11y ago

Just because an act provides net value to a community does not mean it is ethical.

by duaneb 11y ago

Just because an act provides net value to a community does not mean it is ethical.

So are you claiming that the tenants mentioned are somehow worse off than if those trailers weren't available for rent at all? For something to be unethical, someone has to be harmed by it, yes?

danharaj 11y ago
Is it so hard to grasp that local optimization does not necessarily lead to globally favorable conditions?
- tbrownaw 11y ago
  So anything that's part of a system that isn't perfectly ideal is unethical now? There are certain constraints that any large-scale system made of people has to work under, for example the sort of things that make communism not work very well at scales larger than a small commune. Any localized parts of such a system, need to mesh properly with the larger system. Much that is demonized as "exploitative" (not all, but a lot of it), seems to only be considered as such because people look at the immediate imperfections, and disregard the problems that would result from attempting to "fix" those imperfections. I contend that the landlord mentioned is an example of this. You and the poster I initially replied to are providing no substantive arguments against this, but merely implying a lack of critical thought by anyone who doesn't stop their reasoning at the immediate local effects.
  - baddox 11y ago
    > So anything that's part of a system that isn't perfectly ideal is unethical now? I suspect that the commenter means that any sociopolitical system other than his or her preferred one is unethical, which is what anyone who makes moral arguments for sociopolitical systems (i.e. nearly everyone I have ever met) is implicitly claiming.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      What else would motivate someone to make an ethical argument besides thinking that the thing they oppose is unethical?
      - baddox 11y ago
        Probably nothing. I'm just making this explicit, because people tend to not come right out and say "if you disagree with me then you're evil."
duaneb 11y ago
Ethics is not binary. It is ethical to provide shelter. It is more ethical to provide shelter without profiting. The landlord has expenses, including perhaps a vacation, but they should be minimized. I dont have much beef with the trailer park owner in question, but you are simplifying the variables at play. The net win for everyone would be providing shelter at absolute minimum cost, including for the people maintaining the trailers for others. A landlord's profits may stand in the way of this.
- MichaelBurge 11y ago
  Similarly, employees should accept the bare minimum salary they need to live on(perhaps with a modest vacation). Anything above this is unethical, since they are now profiting off of their employer. In both cases, you are essentially condemning the person to stay in that position forever with no chance of advancement. It reminds me of the parable of the talents[1]; I tend to agree with its conclusion that the guy who manages 30 skyscrapers should be given this recently-built batch of 12 to manage, since he's already demonstrated competence. It's hard to make this actually happen if you take everything he has except a pittance, so his purchasing power is equal to that of somebody who has no business managing skyscrapers. [1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - duaneb 11y ago
    Why is advancement desirable? Giving people more responsibility when they prove they can handle it is one thing. It's entirely another to equate advancement with monetary compensation. In general, I believe people should be incentivized with responsibility, which is in everyone's interest. Cash compensation only benefits one person; doubly so when considering the rate of tax avoidance in the upper echelons of income.
    - MichaelBurge 11y ago