3 ms·

I thought I was pretty clear: the relationship to the employer no longer matters. The relevant relationship is citizen to country. tablespoon, your analysis i

by 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?

by dsr_ 5y ago

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?