2 ms·

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 s

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.

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.