6 ms·

> Interestingly, this is the same argument that was used in favor of slavery. That's really not very interesting, this same argument can be applied to many thi

by jonfw 4y ago

> Interestingly, this is the same argument that was used in favor of slavery. That's really not very interesting, this same argument can be applied to many things that were good and many things that were bad. Let's try and focus on the topic at hand vs arguing semantics

kyleee 4y ago
Probably tends to derail the thread also by relating the topic at hand to slavery, indentured servitude, etc
ckw 4y ago
I think it’s not only very interesting but highly revealing that the same argument made in favor of the most iniquitous of all labor relations is reflexively used to justify gig work.
Dylan16807 4y ago
It's not about semantics, it's "this argument sucks, find a better one".
- jonfw 4y ago
  The OP is making a utilitarian argument. You can’t argue that utilitarianism is a defunct philosophy because people once used it to justify slavery. If you are making this argument, please share your philosophy that no bad person has ever used to make a point
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I think you're strongly misunderstanding the criticism. It's not "utilitarianism is wrong". It's more like "the specific claim that sub-standard working conditions are better than nothing is a very old and weak argument that has a tradition of being used to justify subjugation". And frankly I don't see how OP's argument is particularly utilitarian. Is the counterargument of "allowing companies to do this hurts workers in aggregate" not equally utilitarian? Worrying about free will and free association is more the realm of liberalism, isn't it?
    - jonfw 4y ago
      > the specific claim that sub-standard working conditions are better than nothing is a very old and weak argument that has a tradition of being used to justify subjugation It's a weak argument when it's incorrect. slavery is clearly not better than nothing. That doesn't mean that it's a bad argument, it means that slavery isn't defensible by that argument. Focus on the meat of the argument. A job can either be worth doing or not worth doing for a worker, based on the working conditions. We can agree on that surely. A productive discussion would focus on defining an acceptable working condition and whether or not uber meets that definition.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        "Nothing" here is total lack of a job or similar, so slavery at least keeps you from starving and gives you shelter. In this myopic sense it's better than nothing. But in the big picture, it's important to have standards. The argument works in both situations and has similar failings in both situations. > Focus on the meat of the argument. A job can either be worth doing or not worth doing for a worker, based on the working conditions. We can agree on that surely. That's basically a tautology, so sure. > A productive discussion would focus on defining an acceptable working condition and whether or not uber meets that definition. Which is why it's helpful to point out that people getting something out of a job doesn't show that it's acceptable.

by jonfw 4y ago

kyleee 4y ago

Probably tends to derail the thread also by relating the topic at hand to slavery, indentured servitude, etc

ckw 4y ago

I think it’s not only very interesting but highly revealing that the same argument made in favor of the most iniquitous of all labor relations is reflexively used to justify gig work.

Dylan16807 4y ago

It's not about semantics, it's "this argument sucks, find a better one".

jonfw 4y ago
The OP is making a utilitarian argument. You can’t argue that utilitarianism is a defunct philosophy because people once used it to justify slavery. If you are making this argument, please share your philosophy that no bad person has ever used to make a point
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  I think you're strongly misunderstanding the criticism. It's not "utilitarianism is wrong". It's more like "the specific claim that sub-standard working conditions are better than nothing is a very old and weak argument that has a tradition of being used to justify subjugation". And frankly I don't see how OP's argument is particularly utilitarian. Is the counterargument of "allowing companies to do this hurts workers in aggregate" not equally utilitarian? Worrying about free will and free association is more the realm of liberalism, isn't it?
  - jonfw 4y ago
    > the specific claim that sub-standard working conditions are better than nothing is a very old and weak argument that has a tradition of being used to justify subjugation It's a weak argument when it's incorrect. slavery is clearly not better than nothing. That doesn't mean that it's a bad argument, it means that slavery isn't defensible by that argument. Focus on the meat of the argument. A job can either be worth doing or not worth doing for a worker, based on the working conditions. We can agree on that surely. A productive discussion would focus on defining an acceptable working condition and whether or not uber meets that definition.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      "Nothing" here is total lack of a job or similar, so slavery at least keeps you from starving and gives you shelter. In this myopic sense it's better than nothing. But in the big picture, it's important to have standards. The argument works in both situations and has similar failings in both situations. > Focus on the meat of the argument. A job can either be worth doing or not worth doing for a worker, based on the working conditions. We can agree on that surely. That's basically a tautology, so sure. > A productive discussion would focus on defining an acceptable working condition and whether or not uber meets that definition. Which is why it's helpful to point out that people getting something out of a job doesn't show that it's acceptable.