3 ms·

If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. What's so difficult about this concept? Maybe someone else is incentivized to pay for you. But if th

by Kaiyou 7y ago

If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. What's so difficult about this concept? Maybe someone else is incentivized to pay for you. But if there isn't, you do not actually deserve anything costing money, without being able to pay that money. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Miner49er 7y ago
> If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. There's a lot of problems with this concept. We don't live in a meritocracy. Having money doesn't mean your life is more valuable then someone else's. A kid born to a billionaire has access to extreme wealth (and therefore economic power) without proving any merit for it. Humanity has tried monarchism already, and we've decided it's not the best way to run things. People shouldn't be given power just cause they are related to the last guy who had it. Hell, even if we did live in a meritocracy, is it moral to let people die because they lost the genetic roll of the dice? Somebody born with a disability should just die since they have less economic worth?
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  Actually, having more money means that your life is more valuable. Just like a sack full of gold is more valuable than a sack full of broken glass. It's just people get all emotional when applying the same concept to humans. Is it moral to replace broken things instead of trying to fix them, considering that fixing will be more expensive and the thing might just break down again after a while anyway? That's not a question about morality, is it? Except if you replace "things" with "humans". I personally do not understand why this difference exists, however. Why is it alright to abort babies that might get a disability, but it's completely out of the question to murder someone later in life for the same reason. It doesn't make sense to me. A persons life isn't inherently worth anything. If the economic output is negative and no one is willing to cover, why shouldn't that someone just die? It would be like saving money. There are probably good reasons that I just don't know, otherwise things wouldn't be the way they are or at least that's what I figure.
  - Infinitesimus 7y ago
    Hmm, are you theorizing or do you believe these things? For instance, do you believe your life to be worth less than that of everyone else who has more money than you? What if that money was inherited and they didn't work a day in their lives? What about the life is say, Nikola Tesla who didn't have much money but laid foundations upon which a lot of our world is built today? Is the person who negotiated for more money than you make now (while doing less useful work) have a more valuable life than yours? Imagine you were walking with a friend of equal net worth, by your logic, if they suddenly found $100 on the ground and took it, their life is suddenly more valuable than yours? What if you both got struck with an illness and the doctor triaging said "huh, Kaiyou is worth $100 less than their friend so I guess I have to let him die and focus on the slightly wealthier person". Have you ever enjoyed the company of someone who was economically worth less you? What of the benefits of their contributions (think of your teachers, researchers, janitors, construction workers, etc.). Assuming human value can be simply measured in made up constructs of money and debt obligations ignores a lot of what makes our experience richer > Is it moral to replace broken things instead of trying to fix them, considering that fixing will be more expensive and the thing might just break down again after a while anyway? That's not a question about morality, is it? Except if you replace "things" with "humans". I personally do not understand why this difference exists, however. It seems a big driver of your beliefs is that humans are worth nothing inherently. Morality enters the game entirely because we're conscious and have created morality questions and concerns for ourselves. Your shoes never quite evolved to have those questions (though if we ever achieve some loosely defined form of AGI, those questions will come into play)
    - Kaiyou 7y ago
      I'm observing reality and reaching conclusions. But I'm not viewing things as fine grained as you are, but more fuzzy. A hundred bucks are basically nothing, but if I'm a doctor and have to decide whether to work for someone paying me a thousand dollar per hour or for someone paying me a thousand dollar per day, who am I going to choose to work for is obvious. If the difference in money isn't big, than things aren't as obvious. I don't know much about what Nikola Tesla did, but maybe it's similar to someone having failed to negotiate adequate compensation. Which in turn is similar to someone getting killed and having his wealth outright stolen. The outcome is kinda the same: someone who didn't create the wealth reaps the benefits. Here's the thing, though, all said and done it doesn't matter who created the wealth, but who has it. Or let's rephrase that. Between the guy who cured cancer and the one who killed that guy, but got all the research results. Does it really matter to you who sells you the cure as long as you get the cure, if you suffer from cancer? Sure, there's injustice and all that. But does it really matter enough for you to not buy the cure for cancer from the murderer and die instead? And that is my answer. If you can amass wealth you are worth more. Even if you stole the wealth. You might then be hated and persecuted, but with enough wealth, that's not really that much of a problem, as there are few people not willing to buy the cure of cancer from a murderer if their life is on the line with no alternatives. It's all about benefits in the end and wealth is a form of benefit. If you're good at gaining wealth, you're worth more than people who are bad at gaining wealth.

by Kaiyou 7y ago

Miner49er 7y ago

> If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. There's a lot of problems with this concept. We don't live in a meritocracy. Having money doesn't mean your life is more valuable then someone else's. A kid born to a billionaire has access to extreme wealth (and therefore economic power) without proving any merit for it. Humanity has tried monarchism already, and we've decided it's not the best way to run things. People shouldn't be given power just cause they are related to the last guy who had it. Hell, even if we did live in a meritocracy, is it moral to let people die because they lost the genetic roll of the dice? Somebody born with a disability should just die since they have less economic worth?

Kaiyou 7y ago
Actually, having more money means that your life is more valuable. Just like a sack full of gold is more valuable than a sack full of broken glass. It's just people get all emotional when applying the same concept to humans. Is it moral to replace broken things instead of trying to fix them, considering that fixing will be more expensive and the thing might just break down again after a while anyway? That's not a question about morality, is it? Except if you replace "things" with "humans". I personally do not understand why this difference exists, however. Why is it alright to abort babies that might get a disability, but it's completely out of the question to murder someone later in life for the same reason. It doesn't make sense to me. A persons life isn't inherently worth anything. If the economic output is negative and no one is willing to cover, why shouldn't that someone just die? It would be like saving money. There are probably good reasons that I just don't know, otherwise things wouldn't be the way they are or at least that's what I figure.
- Infinitesimus 7y ago
  Hmm, are you theorizing or do you believe these things? For instance, do you believe your life to be worth less than that of everyone else who has more money than you? What if that money was inherited and they didn't work a day in their lives? What about the life is say, Nikola Tesla who didn't have much money but laid foundations upon which a lot of our world is built today? Is the person who negotiated for more money than you make now (while doing less useful work) have a more valuable life than yours? Imagine you were walking with a friend of equal net worth, by your logic, if they suddenly found $100 on the ground and took it, their life is suddenly more valuable than yours? What if you both got struck with an illness and the doctor triaging said "huh, Kaiyou is worth $100 less than their friend so I guess I have to let him die and focus on the slightly wealthier person". Have you ever enjoyed the company of someone who was economically worth less you? What of the benefits of their contributions (think of your teachers, researchers, janitors, construction workers, etc.). Assuming human value can be simply measured in made up constructs of money and debt obligations ignores a lot of what makes our experience richer > Is it moral to replace broken things instead of trying to fix them, considering that fixing will be more expensive and the thing might just break down again after a while anyway? That's not a question about morality, is it? Except if you replace "things" with "humans". I personally do not understand why this difference exists, however. It seems a big driver of your beliefs is that humans are worth nothing inherently. Morality enters the game entirely because we're conscious and have created morality questions and concerns for ourselves. Your shoes never quite evolved to have those questions (though if we ever achieve some loosely defined form of AGI, those questions will come into play)
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    I'm observing reality and reaching conclusions. But I'm not viewing things as fine grained as you are, but more fuzzy. A hundred bucks are basically nothing, but if I'm a doctor and have to decide whether to work for someone paying me a thousand dollar per hour or for someone paying me a thousand dollar per day, who am I going to choose to work for is obvious. If the difference in money isn't big, than things aren't as obvious. I don't know much about what Nikola Tesla did, but maybe it's similar to someone having failed to negotiate adequate compensation. Which in turn is similar to someone getting killed and having his wealth outright stolen. The outcome is kinda the same: someone who didn't create the wealth reaps the benefits. Here's the thing, though, all said and done it doesn't matter who created the wealth, but who has it. Or let's rephrase that. Between the guy who cured cancer and the one who killed that guy, but got all the research results. Does it really matter to you who sells you the cure as long as you get the cure, if you suffer from cancer? Sure, there's injustice and all that. But does it really matter enough for you to not buy the cure for cancer from the murderer and die instead? And that is my answer. If you can amass wealth you are worth more. Even if you stole the wealth. You might then be hated and persecuted, but with enough wealth, that's not really that much of a problem, as there are few people not willing to buy the cure of cancer from a murderer if their life is on the line with no alternatives. It's all about benefits in the end and wealth is a form of benefit. If you're good at gaining wealth, you're worth more than people who are bad at gaining wealth.