4 ms·

How is it immoral to ban 7-day overtime child labor? Edit: Quit downvoting him you morons, he brings up an interesting point of view with interesting arguement

by palish 17y ago

How is it immoral to ban 7-day overtime child labor? Edit: Quit downvoting him you morons, he brings up an interesting point of view with interesting arguements and should not be punished for doing so.

kiba 17y ago
We allow adults to work insane overtime, but not for children. Why? Isn't it still voluntary that children choose to work insane overtime? Isn't the employer providing compensation for the children, which they accept in the first place? Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work?
- pyre 17y ago
  > Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work? By this argument, pimps are really philanthropists.
  - kiba 17y ago
    I never suggested that a employer is a philanthropist. However if an employer is the only one who will give a job, than, it is a morally superior outcome to starving. Taking that job away will in fact, create an inferior moral outcome.
  - palish 17y ago
    Just wondering, do you spend a lot of time thinking about sex workers?
    - pyre 17y ago
      Huh? A pimp was the first modern-day 'employer' I could think of that is controlling and abusive to his/her 'employees' in a way that lends itself to metaphor. Would you pose the same question to someone that used the saying, "I'm whoring myself out?"
- palish 17y ago
  While I can empathize with your point of view, I have to disagree. Children don't have the perspective to make an informed decision about whether they should accept certain working conditions. (I'm speaking as a former child who would have accepted any kind of working conditions to have a "real" job.) For a child, there is a very real chance his entire life could become dominated by insane work policies. He really shouldn't be deciding whether or not to accept those policies until he reaches a certain level of maturity. Also, you say that we should accept child labor in the name of progress. However, if we do not discourage this practice now, then it will always be accepted later, after China or whoever is a "modern" country.
  - kiba 17y ago
    While I can empathize with your point of view, I have to disagree. Children don't have the perspective to make an informed decision about whether they should accept certain working conditions. (I'm speaking as a former child who would have accepted any kind of working conditions to have a "real" job.) How do you know if you have the informed perspective? What is a informed perspective anyway? How do you determine maturity, for that matter? Only parents have that kind of knowledge, and we don't know if they are particularly good parents. Will his life really be dominated by insane work policies? What do you consider insane? All of this is because some people don't have knowledge. Therefore, we're going to make laws outlawing certain type of labors, damn the unforeseen consequences, and damn the teenage stakeholders!
    - palish 17y ago
      I'm going to cut this line of questioning short so that you're not subjected to further downvote abuse from dumbasses. It's really a shame we can't have a nice, intelligent conversation on HN without one side of the debate being demonized in the process.
- nagrom 17y ago
  It's a commonly-received truth that children are not sufficiently developed to make potentially abusive deals. This is why we have laws against sex with children, why children cannot legally gamble or take out loans and why children have special labour laws. An adult is considered to be sufficiently mature to look after themselves, a child is not. The employer is not the person who should provide food and shelter for kids - that's the parents' job. And 'some work' is often a euphemism for development-stunting, dangerous, exhausting labour which can harm the child for life. Of course, one can argue that the child needs to work to survive, if its parents cannot support it. That's a separate issue. In this case the child needs a responsible adult to act in locus parentis, whether that is another adult or a state or charity. However, banning child labour is not an immoral choice and refusing to accept the products of it is not immoral either. I am surprised at your apparent astonishment that people are against the entire concept of child labour. I suspect that your next argument in favour of the concept is that it would be immoral to take away the job of a child who relies upon that support. I'd argue that, in fact, the moral lapse lies with the parents and society that allows a vulnerable person to be put into that position without having had a chance to mature properly first.
  - kiba 17y ago
    It's a commonly-received truth that children are not sufficiently developed to make potentially abusive deals. This is why we have laws against sex with children, why children cannot legally gamble or take out loans and why children have special labour laws. An adult is considered to be sufficiently mature to look after themselves, a child is not. Children may be more likely than an adult to make a wrong decision. However, it still does not follow that consents law and labor laws actually solve the problem. Young adults still need to accumulate experience and knowledge about potentially abusive deals. I suspect that your next argument in favour of the concept is that it would be immoral to take away the job of a child who relies upon that support. I'd argue that, in fact, the moral lapse lies with the parents and society that allows a vulnerable person to be put into that position without having had a chance to mature properly first. That is to assume that society and parents have unlimited resources at their disposal. It may be the only moral option. Banning child labor does not in actual meaning child labor will not occur. All that does is put child labor in the black market and from the prying eyes of upstanding members of society.

by palish 17y ago

kiba 17y ago

We allow adults to work insane overtime, but not for children. Why? Isn't it still voluntary that children choose to work insane overtime? Isn't the employer providing compensation for the children, which they accept in the first place? Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work?

pyre 17y ago
> Do you begrudge an employer who provide you food and shelter and a chance to live another day in exchange for some work? By this argument, pimps are really philanthropists.
- kiba 17y ago
  I never suggested that a employer is a philanthropist. However if an employer is the only one who will give a job, than, it is a morally superior outcome to starving. Taking that job away will in fact, create an inferior moral outcome.
- palish 17y ago
  Just wondering, do you spend a lot of time thinking about sex workers?
  - pyre 17y ago
    Huh? A pimp was the first modern-day 'employer' I could think of that is controlling and abusive to his/her 'employees' in a way that lends itself to metaphor. Would you pose the same question to someone that used the saying, "I'm whoring myself out?"
palish 17y ago
While I can empathize with your point of view, I have to disagree. Children don't have the perspective to make an informed decision about whether they should accept certain working conditions. (I'm speaking as a former child who would have accepted any kind of working conditions to have a "real" job.) For a child, there is a very real chance his entire life could become dominated by insane work policies. He really shouldn't be deciding whether or not to accept those policies until he reaches a certain level of maturity. Also, you say that we should accept child labor in the name of progress. However, if we do not discourage this practice now, then it will always be accepted later, after China or whoever is a "modern" country.
- kiba 17y ago
  While I can empathize with your point of view, I have to disagree. Children don't have the perspective to make an informed decision about whether they should accept certain working conditions. (I'm speaking as a former child who would have accepted any kind of working conditions to have a "real" job.) How do you know if you have the informed perspective? What is a informed perspective anyway? How do you determine maturity, for that matter? Only parents have that kind of knowledge, and we don't know if they are particularly good parents. Will his life really be dominated by insane work policies? What do you consider insane? All of this is because some people don't have knowledge. Therefore, we're going to make laws outlawing certain type of labors, damn the unforeseen consequences, and damn the teenage stakeholders!
  - palish 17y ago
    I'm going to cut this line of questioning short so that you're not subjected to further downvote abuse from dumbasses. It's really a shame we can't have a nice, intelligent conversation on HN without one side of the debate being demonized in the process.
nagrom 17y ago
It's a commonly-received truth that children are not sufficiently developed to make potentially abusive deals. This is why we have laws against sex with children, why children cannot legally gamble or take out loans and why children have special labour laws. An adult is considered to be sufficiently mature to look after themselves, a child is not. The employer is not the person who should provide food and shelter for kids - that's the parents' job. And 'some work' is often a euphemism for development-stunting, dangerous, exhausting labour which can harm the child for life. Of course, one can argue that the child needs to work to survive, if its parents cannot support it. That's a separate issue. In this case the child needs a responsible adult to act in locus parentis, whether that is another adult or a state or charity. However, banning child labour is not an immoral choice and refusing to accept the products of it is not immoral either. I am surprised at your apparent astonishment that people are against the entire concept of child labour. I suspect that your next argument in favour of the concept is that it would be immoral to take away the job of a child who relies upon that support. I'd argue that, in fact, the moral lapse lies with the parents and society that allows a vulnerable person to be put into that position without having had a chance to mature properly first.
- kiba 17y ago
  It's a commonly-received truth that children are not sufficiently developed to make potentially abusive deals. This is why we have laws against sex with children, why children cannot legally gamble or take out loans and why children have special labour laws. An adult is considered to be sufficiently mature to look after themselves, a child is not. Children may be more likely than an adult to make a wrong decision. However, it still does not follow that consents law and labor laws actually solve the problem. Young adults still need to accumulate experience and knowledge about potentially abusive deals. I suspect that your next argument in favour of the concept is that it would be immoral to take away the job of a child who relies upon that support. I'd argue that, in fact, the moral lapse lies with the parents and society that allows a vulnerable person to be put into that position without having had a chance to mature properly first. That is to assume that society and parents have unlimited resources at their disposal. It may be the only moral option. Banning child labor does not in actual meaning child labor will not occur. All that does is put child labor in the black market and from the prying eyes of upstanding members of society.