9 ms·

>>> I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the oth

>>> I mean, seems like they just turn up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit around all day getting paid until they get fired, then they take up the other offer ? >> These are health care workers, not retail clerks at a GameStop. If they did that it would likely mean a patient doesn't get adequate care. > And? If you're going to basically force someone to work for you, you get what you get. My point is: it would be unethical to "stick to the man" in that way, because there could literally be an innocent man down the hall who's suffering because of your immediate actions. That's not a man you should stick it to. It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that. Imagine these scenarios: A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some patient who's laying in his own piss and shit, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him a bedpan. or A nurse "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from some who dies because he didn't get his medication, because that nurse refused to do her job to give him his medication. vs. A GameStop clerk "turn[s] up with a camp chair and a good book, then sit[s] around all day" across from a customer who wants to buy a videogame but can't.

dsr_ 5y ago
Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts. If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that. > Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts. > If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book. This is exactly the kind of premature analysis stoppage I was talking about (i.e. thinking like the only thing that matters is your relationship to your employer, and everything else can be ignored). It's not a recipe for doing the right thing, it's a recipe for being a self-righteous asshole who could do a lot of harm.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil. Slave? Good? Evil? The rhetoric in this thread is over the top and way too melodramatic. "Valiant nurse Skywalker struck a blow against the EVIL Empire by letting the sick ewok Wicket wallow in his own shit. He could help Wicket, but that would be SLAVERY, so he BECAME THE BEARER OF GOOD by watching Wicket suffer and reading a magazine instead of helping him." Let me put it this way: It's more evil to sit there and watch some patient suffer without helping them than whatever evil you're so concerned with here. However, I totally get that it may be difficult for some software engineers (whose jobs typically have no more moral significance or responsibility than a GameStop clerk's), to understand that not every situation is like their own.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    I thought I was pretty clear: the relationship to the employer no longer matters. The relevant relationship is citizen to country. tablespoon, your analysis is that a person who can help another one has a duty to do so even if it hurts the helper. That's not right. We don't require people to donate kidneys, we praise them when they volunteer, and we condemn regimes that take organs involuntarily. Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > I thought I was pretty clear: the relationship to the employer no longer matters. > The relevant relationship is citizen to country. > tablespoon, your analysis is that a person who can help another one has a duty to do so even if it hurts the helper. That's not right. I'm actually focusing on the idea that you expressed approval of, where the person goes to work, but then deliberately neglects their duties. The proximity is morally relevant there. It's one thing to quit, it's quite another to go in and basically taunt an innocent person who's in need while you stick it to the man, and that's a distinct possibility if (say) a nurse accepts a shift with the intention of slacking until she's fired. There's more at play with health care workers than just their "relationship to the employer." > Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions. Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral, by the way. Don't forget that. I'm not sure if it has a name, but there an error in reasoning at play here, where someone has choices A and B but they're analyzed in a characteristically incomplete way. Only the pros of A and the cons of B are actually weighed, and the conclusion is that A is the right choice. If you're going to be honest, analyze the thing holistically.
tata71 5y ago
> My point is: it would be unethical to "stick to the man" in that way, Healthcare workers in the US were largely done thinking this way before the pandemic, unfortunately.

dsr_ 5y ago

Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts. If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> It's not OK to stop your analysis where the original comment did, before you consider scenarios like that. > Nope. If you are a slave, you owe your owner nothing except escape attempts. > If the law says that you can't change employer, you owe every other citizen your best attempt to show up and find a comfy place to sit until they fire you. Bring a book. This is exactly the kind of premature analysis stoppage I was talking about (i.e. thinking like the only thing that matters is your relationship to your employer, and everything else can be ignored). It's not a recipe for doing the right thing, it's a recipe for being a self-righteous asshole who could do a lot of harm.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Well yes , harm is the point. It is not up to the slave to be the bearer of good in the face of evil. Slave? Good? Evil? The rhetoric in this thread is over the top and way too melodramatic. "Valiant nurse Skywalker struck a blow against the EVIL Empire by letting the sick ewok Wicket wallow in his own shit. He could help Wicket, but that would be SLAVERY, so he BECAME THE BEARER OF GOOD by watching Wicket suffer and reading a magazine instead of helping him." Let me put it this way: It's more evil to sit there and watch some patient suffer without helping them than whatever evil you're so concerned with here. However, I totally get that it may be difficult for some software engineers (whose jobs typically have no more moral significance or responsibility than a GameStop clerk's), to understand that not every situation is like their own.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  I thought I was pretty clear: the relationship to the employer no longer matters. The relevant relationship is citizen to country. tablespoon, your analysis is that a person who can help another one has a duty to do so even if it hurts the helper. That's not right. We don't require people to donate kidneys, we praise them when they volunteer, and we condemn regimes that take organs involuntarily. Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I thought I was pretty clear: the relationship to the employer no longer matters. > The relevant relationship is citizen to country. > tablespoon, your analysis is that a person who can help another one has a duty to do so even if it hurts the helper. That's not right. I'm actually focusing on the idea that you expressed approval of, where the person goes to work, but then deliberately neglects their duties. The proximity is morally relevant there. It's one thing to quit, it's quite another to go in and basically taunt an innocent person who's in need while you stick it to the man, and that's a distinct possibility if (say) a nurse accepts a shift with the intention of slacking until she's fired. There's more at play with health care workers than just their "relationship to the employer." > Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions. Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral, by the way. Don't forget that. I'm not sure if it has a name, but there an error in reasoning at play here, where someone has choices A and B but they're analyzed in a characteristically incomplete way. Only the pros of A and the cons of B are actually weighed, and the conclusion is that A is the right choice. If you're going to be honest, analyze the thing holistically.

tata71 5y ago

> My point is: it would be unethical to "stick to the man" in that way, Healthcare workers in the US were largely done thinking this way before the pandemic, unfortunately.