3 ms·
I think it's more like: "For every[1] job J, there is a pay P such that if you're getting paid more than P, you'll more than like doing J." [1] Actually, we h
by reginaldo 15y ago
I think it's more like:
"For every[1] job J, there is a pay P such that if you're getting paid more than P, you'll more than like doing J."
[1] Actually, we have to exclude a lot of jobs from the set of possible jobs. There are many things I wouldn't do on a matter of personal principles, like designing bombs, for instance.
Edit: not that I agree with the thing, it is just my interpretation of it.
- meric 15y agoWould you design a (small) bomb for 2 billion dollars?
- Daniel14 15y agoYes. But I'd donate half of it to starving African children or other people (more than could be killed with my bomb) in desperate need. Besides, a person who designs a weapon isn't really responsible for what happens when someone uses it to kill people.
- jgamman 15y agoThat last sentence sounds ethically dubious. A knife has many uses so is arguably neutral but a bomb? Enabling other people to do harm implies culpability.
- jodrellblank 15y agoEnabling other people to do harm implies culpability. Guess I'd better not vote and put someone in power anymore then, or pay taxes which may go on military spending.
- noonespecial 15y agoAnd if your bomb was detonated during the Nobel award ceremony, or at a TED conference, killing a few brilliant minds who could save a hundred times as many children?