3 ms·

Yup. So much this. If everyone can realize this. We all are nothing but resources for companies, politicians and law enforcement is there to help the prior two.

Yup. So much this. If everyone can realize this. We all are nothing but resources for companies, politicians and law enforcement is there to help the prior two. It really is us the people that they are afraid of.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
If you’re cynical enough, you could easily argue that every relationship that any person has is based on nothing more than resources. Somebody claims to love their wife? Unlikely. They’re just looking for some love and fulfilment resource. Do you really like your friends? Or do you just like the way friendship makes you feel?
- curiousllama 6y ago
  Only if you define resource so broadly as to constitute anything, at which point the statement becomes “all relationships are based on things” ... which, like, yes of course
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Whether resources are material or not isn’t relevant. The attention, care, kindness, compassion that a person has to offer others is a resource (and a finite one at that). The basis of the claim is that these entities are viewing other people as nothing more than what those people have to offer them. If you prescribe to the doctrine of psychological egoism, then that is how every single person views every single relationship they have (intentionally or otherwise). I would say that’s a rather cynical way to view the world (others would say it’s just a factual perspective). But if you view this scenario from that perspective, there’s no logical reason that you shouldn’t also view the relationships you have with your own spouse/parents/children/friends... the same way.
    - lostcolony 6y ago
      Sure there is; even with so reductionist a view, those relationships can be healthy because they are between equals, and can be done with reciprocity. With a corporation or politician? Not so much.
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        The views in my comments are no more reductionist than the parent comment I was replying to. I would also suggest that rejecting psychological egoism as reductionist is a rather blatant anti-science point of view. However whether reciprocity was involved doesn’t at all change the existence of a self-interested motive. It’s simply irrelevant. Furthermore, in this case there was reciprocity. In this instance the big corporate interests were selling a product for which doctors had a demand to treat their patients. You’re welcome to have an opinion about the integrity and value of that reciprocity, but that goes for anybody in regards to any relationship. A cynical person could come to that conclusion about any relationship, and offer you a justification for it supported entirely by a leading thesis from the field of ethics.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >But if you view this scenario from that perspective, there’s no logical reason that you shouldn’t also view the relationships you have with your own spouse/parents/children/friends... the same way. Absolutely. And while such attitudes are not incredibly widespread, there are enough folks who do so that we have a name for exhibiting such behavior. We call it Narcissistic Personality Disorder[0]. Which is a terrible thing to do of course, as it stigmatizes a whole group of people that just want to live their lives and use the the objects in their environment to their advantage. What's bad with that? [0] https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder.htm https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissi...
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Your wrong about this. The actual term for this (as I mentioned above) is psychological egoism. This topic has been publicly debated for a very long time. You can look at the history of the debate between egoism and utilitarianism (and the further debate about whether there’s a meaningful difference between those two ideas) if you want to learn about it. People have debated for a very long time whether a person who derives satisfaction from benefitting others is truely motivated by the benefit of others, or simply the benefit of themselves by way of that satisfaction. A narcissist is a completely different thing. They would not derive satisfaction from benefitting others, for reasons such as their narcissistic lack of empathy.
  - sksnskkcahan 6y ago
    You’re right, and I think this is a good point against the root comment. Nobody can argue against the claim that we are all just resources to politicians, corporations, and law enforcement because it is vacuously true. It’s like saying we are all just atoms. It doesn’t tell us whether many or most in those industries are good people who are in it for the right reasons. And of course, this story about a particular repugnant act can’t prove such a blanket statement.
- johnisgood 6y ago
  Maybe we are doing what we are doing to either to: "relieve personal distress (e.g. discomfort from the situation), avoid self-punishment (e.g. feelings of guilt), avoid social-punishment (e.g. looking bad to others), obtain rewards from self or others (e.g. praise, pride), gain a mood-enhancing experience (e.g. feel glad someone was helped)."[1] [1] https://iep.utm.edu/psychego/ https://iep.utm.edu/psychego/
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Anyone who says that seriously is someone to be steered way the hell away from, that’s way too sociopathic for my comfort.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    I would suggest that projecting evil motives onto others implies a far greater sociopathic tendency. Keep in mind that all of the worst things we’ve managed to accomplish as a species tended to start with dehumanization as the first enabling step. I’d also suggest that this comment would also necessarily include dismissing just about every psychologist, philosopher or ethicist who studies the nature of self-interested motives as being a sociopath as well. If you really wanted to be cynical however, I’d suggest you start by asking who’s benefitting from us having this conversation. I’d say it’s the regulators, and to a greater extent the executives who have been in charge of those regulators, who are the people statutorily responsible for these failures. I can’t imagine how happy they’d be with us debating how culpable big pharma and their management consultants are for it.
- jrumbut 6y ago
  There's a difference between getting something out of a relationship, or even having the relationship contingent on that benefit, and doing absolutely everything short of what will land you in prison to get the maximum benefit for the minimal cost. My favorite local breakfast place only serves me because I pay, but I forgot my wallet one time and they just waived the charge. There's a spectrum between altruism and exploitation, and it's important we put pressure on large organizations to stay away from the exploitation end because it's clear some won't do it on their own.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  You've redefined resource to be literally anything, in an attempt of coming to a materialist worldview. There's three important attributes of resources. Firstly, resources of a same type, defined by their use, are fungible. Secondly, resources are a means to an end. Lastly, resources are valuable either because of their uses or because they can be exchanged. Now, love, fulfillment, and the feeling of friendship realize neither of the three properties. Neither does a wife or a friend. Because of that, I don't think one can say that every relationship a person has is based on nothing more than resources. Personal relationships are categorically different. Additionally, unlike material relationships, personal relationships are most healthy and effective when they are between equals.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    There are many abstract concepts included in the definition of the word resources. You’re trying to argue that it means computable wealth and absolutely nothing else. Which is very obviously ridiculous, and it’s hard to see this comment as anything other than an attempt to start some pointless semantic debate.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I'm certainly not saying that it is equivalent to comptable wealth. Political power fits all three criteria and is not comptable wealth, so does any other kind of resource one could think of.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

If you’re cynical enough, you could easily argue that every relationship that any person has is based on nothing more than resources. Somebody claims to love their wife? Unlikely. They’re just looking for some love and fulfilment resource. Do you really like your friends? Or do you just like the way friendship makes you feel?

curiousllama 6y ago
Only if you define resource so broadly as to constitute anything, at which point the statement becomes “all relationships are based on things” ... which, like, yes of course
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Whether resources are material or not isn’t relevant. The attention, care, kindness, compassion that a person has to offer others is a resource (and a finite one at that). The basis of the claim is that these entities are viewing other people as nothing more than what those people have to offer them. If you prescribe to the doctrine of psychological egoism, then that is how every single person views every single relationship they have (intentionally or otherwise). I would say that’s a rather cynical way to view the world (others would say it’s just a factual perspective). But if you view this scenario from that perspective, there’s no logical reason that you shouldn’t also view the relationships you have with your own spouse/parents/children/friends... the same way.
  - lostcolony 6y ago
    Sure there is; even with so reductionist a view, those relationships can be healthy because they are between equals, and can be done with reciprocity. With a corporation or politician? Not so much.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      The views in my comments are no more reductionist than the parent comment I was replying to. I would also suggest that rejecting psychological egoism as reductionist is a rather blatant anti-science point of view. However whether reciprocity was involved doesn’t at all change the existence of a self-interested motive. It’s simply irrelevant. Furthermore, in this case there was reciprocity. In this instance the big corporate interests were selling a product for which doctors had a demand to treat their patients. You’re welcome to have an opinion about the integrity and value of that reciprocity, but that goes for anybody in regards to any relationship. A cynical person could come to that conclusion about any relationship, and offer you a justification for it supported entirely by a leading thesis from the field of ethics.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >But if you view this scenario from that perspective, there’s no logical reason that you shouldn’t also view the relationships you have with your own spouse/parents/children/friends... the same way. Absolutely. And while such attitudes are not incredibly widespread, there are enough folks who do so that we have a name for exhibiting such behavior. We call it Narcissistic Personality Disorder[0]. Which is a terrible thing to do of course, as it stigmatizes a whole group of people that just want to live their lives and use the the objects in their environment to their advantage. What's bad with that? [0] https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder.htm https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissi...
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Your wrong about this. The actual term for this (as I mentioned above) is psychological egoism. This topic has been publicly debated for a very long time. You can look at the history of the debate between egoism and utilitarianism (and the further debate about whether there’s a meaningful difference between those two ideas) if you want to learn about it. People have debated for a very long time whether a person who derives satisfaction from benefitting others is truely motivated by the benefit of others, or simply the benefit of themselves by way of that satisfaction. A narcissist is a completely different thing. They would not derive satisfaction from benefitting others, for reasons such as their narcissistic lack of empathy.
- sksnskkcahan 6y ago
  You’re right, and I think this is a good point against the root comment. Nobody can argue against the claim that we are all just resources to politicians, corporations, and law enforcement because it is vacuously true. It’s like saying we are all just atoms. It doesn’t tell us whether many or most in those industries are good people who are in it for the right reasons. And of course, this story about a particular repugnant act can’t prove such a blanket statement.
johnisgood 6y ago
Maybe we are doing what we are doing to either to: "relieve personal distress (e.g. discomfort from the situation), avoid self-punishment (e.g. feelings of guilt), avoid social-punishment (e.g. looking bad to others), obtain rewards from self or others (e.g. praise, pride), gain a mood-enhancing experience (e.g. feel glad someone was helped)."[1] [1] https://iep.utm.edu/psychego/ https://iep.utm.edu/psychego/
ashtonkem 6y ago
Anyone who says that seriously is someone to be steered way the hell away from, that’s way too sociopathic for my comfort.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  I would suggest that projecting evil motives onto others implies a far greater sociopathic tendency. Keep in mind that all of the worst things we’ve managed to accomplish as a species tended to start with dehumanization as the first enabling step. I’d also suggest that this comment would also necessarily include dismissing just about every psychologist, philosopher or ethicist who studies the nature of self-interested motives as being a sociopath as well. If you really wanted to be cynical however, I’d suggest you start by asking who’s benefitting from us having this conversation. I’d say it’s the regulators, and to a greater extent the executives who have been in charge of those regulators, who are the people statutorily responsible for these failures. I can’t imagine how happy they’d be with us debating how culpable big pharma and their management consultants are for it.
jrumbut 6y ago
There's a difference between getting something out of a relationship, or even having the relationship contingent on that benefit, and doing absolutely everything short of what will land you in prison to get the maximum benefit for the minimal cost. My favorite local breakfast place only serves me because I pay, but I forgot my wallet one time and they just waived the charge. There's a spectrum between altruism and exploitation, and it's important we put pressure on large organizations to stay away from the exploitation end because it's clear some won't do it on their own.
sudosysgen 6y ago
You've redefined resource to be literally anything, in an attempt of coming to a materialist worldview. There's three important attributes of resources. Firstly, resources of a same type, defined by their use, are fungible. Secondly, resources are a means to an end. Lastly, resources are valuable either because of their uses or because they can be exchanged. Now, love, fulfillment, and the feeling of friendship realize neither of the three properties. Neither does a wife or a friend. Because of that, I don't think one can say that every relationship a person has is based on nothing more than resources. Personal relationships are categorically different. Additionally, unlike material relationships, personal relationships are most healthy and effective when they are between equals.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  There are many abstract concepts included in the definition of the word resources. You’re trying to argue that it means computable wealth and absolutely nothing else. Which is very obviously ridiculous, and it’s hard to see this comment as anything other than an attempt to start some pointless semantic debate.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I'm certainly not saying that it is equivalent to comptable wealth. Political power fits all three criteria and is not comptable wealth, so does any other kind of resource one could think of.