3 ms·

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 b

by 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.
    - dsr_ 5y ago
      The instant case is no longer at controversy, as the judge has dropped the restraining order. Let's continue, anyway. A person who is being ordered to work against their will has no legal or ethical duty to do so, and you haven't offered an argument in favor of it. Legally, the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Conviction is necessary. You can't be forced to work while in jail waiting around to be tried, even if you've been indicted. Any legal argument that you want to offer needs to meet that. Now, ethics. You countered my > Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions. with Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral and completely ignored my analogy of organ donors. I'd be happy to hear your arguments, if they aren't just contradictions. This isn't Argument Clinic. What does "analyze the thing holistically" mean if you have neither legality nor morality on your side?
- spacedcowboy 5y ago
  Please understand me. It's not a premature stoppage. If you are forcing me to be a slave, then fuck you for doing it, and any damage/death/loss suffered by others because of my non-compliance is on your hands, not mine. I absolutely would rock up with a chair and sit watching. Hell, I'd bring popcorn.

by dsr_ 5y ago

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.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    The instant case is no longer at controversy, as the judge has dropped the restraining order. Let's continue, anyway. A person who is being ordered to work against their will has no legal or ethical duty to do so, and you haven't offered an argument in favor of it. Legally, the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Conviction is necessary. You can't be forced to work while in jail waiting around to be tried, even if you've been indicted. Any legal argument that you want to offer needs to meet that. Now, ethics. You countered my > Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions. with Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral and completely ignored my analogy of organ donors. I'd be happy to hear your arguments, if they aren't just contradictions. This isn't Argument Clinic. What does "analyze the thing holistically" mean if you have neither legality nor morality on your side?
spacedcowboy 5y ago
Please understand me. It's not a premature stoppage. If you are forcing me to be a slave, then fuck you for doing it, and any damage/death/loss suffered by others because of my non-compliance is on your hands, not mine. I absolutely would rock up with a chair and sit watching. Hell, I'd bring popcorn.