4 ms·

So if I start a business somewhere that people are starving to death it's ok to abuse the labor because... well now they're abused but they were going to die?

yummyfajitas 16y ago
What does "abuse" mean? Does "abuse" mean cheating your workers? Or does it simply mean paying them less money than you would accept to do a job you wouldn't want to do? If the latter, what makes your utility function correct, and the workers utility function incorrect? I.e., what right do you have to tell them you know better than them, and that they can't take a job they prefer to other available options?
- loewenskind 16y ago
  If you find a woman who is starving to death and you offer here one hamburger to perform sexual services for you did you abuse her? But why? She would have starved to death otherwise right? It is abuse because we take advantage of people who have no other options to get them to trade every waking moment of their life away for their survival. There is no moral ambiguity here. Why do you feel the need to justify it? It's not like I'm judging you personally. I'm profiting from exactly the same system and am not doing anything to change that fact.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    No, your example isn't abuse. It's undesirable - I'd certainly like it if no one were starving to death, but the guy improving her situation is not the problem.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      Wow, a man forcing a woman to prostitute herself for the sake of her survival and that of her family is improving her situation? I'm afraid your Dogmatism is showing...
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Since she would starve to death without the client, her situation is indeed improved. Do you consider death better than prostitution? Even if you do, she doesn't, and I take her opinion on the matter more seriously than yours. What you call dogmatism is merely logical consistency. You are merely substituting an emotional judgement for reason. Starvation is a bad situation, but unfortunately you have no one to blame. After she engages in a transaction with someone better off, you've now got someone to point the finger at. That's great if you have an emotional need to blame someone, but in your hypothetical there is no guilty party. No one has harmed anyone else.
        loewenskind 16y ago
        >Do you consider death better than prostitution? Strawman, though I suspect you don't even realize it. If you find a woman and her family starving your moral obligation is to provide her help: A legitimate, non-exploitative means of providing for herself, provide for her directly with reasonable or no strings attached or put her in contact with someone who can do one of those things. What you suggest is cut and dry exploitation and it's troubling that you find it not only acceptable, but positive! >Starvation is a bad situation, but unfortunately you have no one to blame. Why are you searching for someone to blame? There is no way to know how the person got in this situation, and even if it is their own fault, we all make mistakes. But the person who exploits her situation is clearly in the wrong. >No one has harmed anyone else. You don't seem to comprehend the concept of exploitation.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        If you feel that everyone with the means has the moral obligation to help her, then everyone with the means to help is equally guilty regardless of whether they "exploit" her or not. To bring it back to the example at hand, 37signals (no overseas employees, AFAIK) is just as guilty as Apple for the poor conditions of workers in China. And you or I are just as guilty as the person trading burgers for sex.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

What does "abuse" mean? Does "abuse" mean cheating your workers? Or does it simply mean paying them less money than you would accept to do a job you wouldn't want to do? If the latter, what makes your utility function correct, and the workers utility function incorrect? I.e., what right do you have to tell them you know better than them, and that they can't take a job they prefer to other available options?

loewenskind 16y ago
If you find a woman who is starving to death and you offer here one hamburger to perform sexual services for you did you abuse her? But why? She would have starved to death otherwise right? It is abuse because we take advantage of people who have no other options to get them to trade every waking moment of their life away for their survival. There is no moral ambiguity here. Why do you feel the need to justify it? It's not like I'm judging you personally. I'm profiting from exactly the same system and am not doing anything to change that fact.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  No, your example isn't abuse. It's undesirable - I'd certainly like it if no one were starving to death, but the guy improving her situation is not the problem.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    Wow, a man forcing a woman to prostitute herself for the sake of her survival and that of her family is improving her situation? I'm afraid your Dogmatism is showing...
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Since she would starve to death without the client, her situation is indeed improved. Do you consider death better than prostitution? Even if you do, she doesn't, and I take her opinion on the matter more seriously than yours. What you call dogmatism is merely logical consistency. You are merely substituting an emotional judgement for reason. Starvation is a bad situation, but unfortunately you have no one to blame. After she engages in a transaction with someone better off, you've now got someone to point the finger at. That's great if you have an emotional need to blame someone, but in your hypothetical there is no guilty party. No one has harmed anyone else.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        >Do you consider death better than prostitution? Strawman, though I suspect you don't even realize it. If you find a woman and her family starving your moral obligation is to provide her help: A legitimate, non-exploitative means of providing for herself, provide for her directly with reasonable or no strings attached or put her in contact with someone who can do one of those things. What you suggest is cut and dry exploitation and it's troubling that you find it not only acceptable, but positive! >Starvation is a bad situation, but unfortunately you have no one to blame. Why are you searching for someone to blame? There is no way to know how the person got in this situation, and even if it is their own fault, we all make mistakes. But the person who exploits her situation is clearly in the wrong. >No one has harmed anyone else. You don't seem to comprehend the concept of exploitation.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        If you feel that everyone with the means has the moral obligation to help her, then everyone with the means to help is equally guilty regardless of whether they "exploit" her or not. To bring it back to the example at hand, 37signals (no overseas employees, AFAIK) is just as guilty as Apple for the poor conditions of workers in China. And you or I are just as guilty as the person trading burgers for sex.