4 ms·
As people, we like to think categorically... especially "contracting" in the philosophical and legal sense. Whether its a medieval oath or a standard employment
by dalbasal 6y ago
As people, we like to think categorically... especially "contracting" in the philosophical and legal sense. Whether its a medieval oath or a standard employment contract, the concept of "binding agreement" sorts out moral issues of consent and creates a platform for further relations.
Reality is generally less fussy about categorical boundaries. It likes spectrum. Linnaean classification is an approximation. Biology isn't strict about species, or even organism barriers. It's the same with a lot of cultural stuff.
On one end of the spectrum, we can have a business agreement negotiated diligently and in good faith between equal partners. On the other end, we have take-it-or-leave it agreements: The T&Cs stack a bank hands you when you take a loan. The wall of incomprehensible legalese we consent to when we use an app or website. An employment contract is somewhere on that spectrum. Employees may be able to submit "red line corrections" depending on their seniority and confidence, but generally its written by employers and treated as under their control.
In philosophy, contracts (including rhetorical ones like "moral contracts) are a popular mechanism for problem solving. They certainly are in law. In normal human life, norms are much more common.
- martamorena9182 6y agoI legitimately have no clue what you are trying to say. But it sounds very educated, so that's good I guess?
- laszlokorte 6y agoIn short: contracts are only as valid as you want them to be or as a powerful entity can force them upon you.
- dalbasal 6y agoWhat isn't understandable?
- martamorena9182 6y agoBeing able to read the words doesn't mean the comment makes sense. Reading it over and over again, yeah sure I can understand it, but I don't see any "point" or relation to the original comment. Some people just seem to feel "smart" by wording things as convoluted as possible, using fancy words and references. The truth is, it is much harder to express thoughts clearly with simple, yet elegant words. Mostly because that makes everyone understand it, and everyone able to see through the facade. Meaning that whatever you say will need to hold up to much more scrutiny and you can't hide behind a facade of "fancyness" that scares off readers. It's similar to coding. Writing simple code for complex programs is much much harder than writing complex code for complex problems, or even worse complex code for simple problems, which many people like to do.
- ghodith 6y agoIs that post too fancy though? Sure, "Linnaean classification" could/should be replaced with "taxonomy" or something similar for readability, but none of the rest of the post has and uncommon references or words. The point also seems obvious, and the relevance to the post self explanatory. This rant on obscurantism seems unwarranted with reference to a post written at a pretty standard reading level.
- dalbasal 6y agoIf I have to guess (and it's fun, so why not), I think what triggered the rant was exactly what the comment was describing. I'd call it recursive, but I don't want to sound fancy. My comment wasn't categorical. IE, I didn't get on either the "T&Cs are evil bullshit" or "contracts are the basis of civilization" side. If you're reading for category, everything else is flowery nonsense. Just tell me which side you're on and why.
- bjarneh 6y ago> Some people just seem to feel "smart" by wording things as convoluted as possible, using fancy words and references. If nobody did this, we would not have political sciences :-)
- dalbasal 6y agoWhat does this have to do with the comment you responded to? I reread it. One fancy word: Linnaean. Considering this is HN, that should be OK. I get the feeling you're reacting to the fact that I didn't state a position or a conclusion in my short HN comment. So basically, you don't like that my HN comment isn't a tweet.
- Gunax 6y agoI have thought in a similar vein about capitalism and markets. Why, if everyone is clamoring for fair contracts, are not businesses offering them? Partly it's because consumers cannot tell a good from a bad contract. And partly I think it's that a lot of people say the right signals ('I care deeply about privacy!') As it's the cause de celebre, but don't actually care. Sometimes they just want to watch Hulu without going on a stallman esque campaign.