4 ms·
> edit: I believe workers should be treated fairly, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn. Why should this earn a negative vote?
by CobrastanJorji 9y ago
> edit: I believe workers should be treated fairly, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn. Why should this earn a negative vote?
I assume because this same argument, if you took it to ridiculous extremes, could be used to justify a whole range of terrible shit. Watch:
"I believe workers should not be enslaved, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn."
"I believe Musk should not torture underperforming workers, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn."
I don't think you are actually willing to torture or enslave people so that humanity can get to Mars, but the way you constructed your argument leads in that direction, which is probably why it's being met with resistance.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoI am not trying to create an axiom meant to generalize to all cases. I am just willing to be a little less pro-union (and this point has gotten lost here apparently) than I am usually when it comes to THIS set of companies, for very particular reasons. That is because I tend to think of these companies (at least SpaceX) more as causes than as companies. When you willingly work for a cause, you expect these things. If you are fighting to treat victims of war near battlefields, you might get be indanger, and the organization might not be able to do much about it, or provide you the kinds of benefits that would be deserving in a perfect world.
- lovich 9y agoNoble causes don't tend to be for profit entities. If SpaceX was a charity or not for profit I'd agree, but it's a business and it is hurting the workers to accumulate more capital for the owners. It's goal of getting to Mars is nice but a separate set of moral concerns as long as it is attempting to maximize profit