3 ms·

> No matter how degrading, how awful their experience is Correct, as long as my above assumptions are not violated. That is, no surprises post-contract signing

> No matter how degrading, how awful their experience is Correct, as long as my above assumptions are not violated. That is, no surprises post-contract signing, and so on[1]. Your actions are a net benefit to them. It can't be unethical to benefit someone, unless we're operating under a non-utilitarian moral framework. I'd argue it's unethical to not provide them that terrible job, if the only alternative is for you to not engage with them whatsoever. You are leaving them worse off by choosing this so-called moral high ground. Society may pat you on the back for your upstanding choice, but you are leaving them worse off, so I believe it to be immoral to not provide them that job. [1] In practice, this is fraught because of the power asymmetry -- the employer can easily introduce new conditions post-signing. But I'm assuming that the employer doesn't abuse that asymmetry. It's also fraught because people aren't rational creatures that are capable of perfectly evaluating costs and benefits. So we'd have to evaluate each situation on a case by case basis. > You wouldn't consider it either unkind or unethical to arrange for a needy family member to fight for money I would consider it less unethical to do that, compared to withholding the money. There's a rank order here. It's more ethical to pay them to fight (under my above assumptions) than it is to withhold the money, because you are maximizing their utility by doing so, i.e. you're helping them the most by doing that, relative to that alternative. Of course it would be maximally good to just give them the money with no strings attached. But that doesn't imply that it's unethical to pay them to fight. > make you sad, is at least a signal I am highly skeptical of such evolved responses that are there because of kin selection, reciprocal altruisim, etc. If I feel bad, it means that I'm doing something that's correlated with a reduction in genetic fitness, that's it. Moral certainty based on feelings has motivated genocides, anti-sodomy laws and many other terrible things.

jrochkind1 4y ago
> I'd argue it's unethical to not provide them that terrible job, Then why would it make you sad to provide a family member or loved one with that terrible job, say fighting homeless people for the entertainment of those who find their pathos entertaining? Why wouldn't you feel great, providing them with that job that is a net benefit to them? I mean, maybe not as good as if you were able to just give them a gift, but there's no reason to feel sad, right, you've given them a net gain, setting them up to fight homeless people on youtube? I think if everyone acted according to your principles, there would be a net gain in human misery. Speaking of utilitarian frameworks. Human dignity benefits from, well, valuing human dignity and feeling a responsibility for it. But ok, this conversation is going as far as it's going to. If I had realized you thought it was literally impossible for any employer to behave unethically toward an employee, I wouldn't have gone this far with it. Now I'm curious if you are the same Ayn Randian I had a similar conversation with a few weeks ago, looking through my history... nope, that was someone else! It is very convenient for those who profit from taking advantage of desperate people to believe it is literally impossible for this to be unethical; less convenient for the desperate people being taken advantage of.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  "Then why would it make you sad to provide a family member or loved one with that terrible job" It would also make me feel extremely sad to not give them money with no strings attached if they're in need. What's the point? Are you saying that it's unethical to not give your money to family? If they needed the money, I would feel better getting them to fight for it (because after all, that's better than them dying of cancer or whatever the money is for!) than I would not giving them the money, but I'd feel bad in both situations, because all I'd want to do is maximally help them, and either of these options isn't that. "I think if everyone acted according to your principles, there would be a net gain in human misery." That's funny because I thought the same about your views. There are people on the left that want to shut down trade with China or Bangladesh because they view low wages as exploitative. They would condemn these people to the outcome of poverty and death because of their ad hoc ethical rules that have no grounding in outcomes. "If I had realized you thought it was literally impossible for any employer to behave unethically toward an employee" I said the opposite. Look at my list of assumptions. In those assumptions are all the typical violations of the employee to employer power dynamic, such as unexpected surprises after the contract is signed (say, unexpected occupational hazard, whatever), deceptive fine print in the contract, pressure tactics to get them to agree to something they don't want to, and so on. That's hardly a Randian perspective. Rand thinks none of these things are possible because people are rational creatures that will never agree to something that isn't in their best interest.

jrochkind1 4y ago

> I'd argue it's unethical to not provide them that terrible job, Then why would it make you sad to provide a family member or loved one with that terrible job, say fighting homeless people for the entertainment of those who find their pathos entertaining? Why wouldn't you feel great, providing them with that job that is a net benefit to them? I mean, maybe not as good as if you were able to just give them a gift, but there's no reason to feel sad, right, you've given them a net gain, setting them up to fight homeless people on youtube? I think if everyone acted according to your principles, there would be a net gain in human misery. Speaking of utilitarian frameworks. Human dignity benefits from, well, valuing human dignity and feeling a responsibility for it. But ok, this conversation is going as far as it's going to. If I had realized you thought it was literally impossible for any employer to behave unethically toward an employee, I wouldn't have gone this far with it. Now I'm curious if you are the same Ayn Randian I had a similar conversation with a few weeks ago, looking through my history... nope, that was someone else! It is very convenient for those who profit from taking advantage of desperate people to believe it is literally impossible for this to be unethical; less convenient for the desperate people being taken advantage of.

hackerlight 4y ago
"Then why would it make you sad to provide a family member or loved one with that terrible job" It would also make me feel extremely sad to not give them money with no strings attached if they're in need. What's the point? Are you saying that it's unethical to not give your money to family? If they needed the money, I would feel better getting them to fight for it (because after all, that's better than them dying of cancer or whatever the money is for!) than I would not giving them the money, but I'd feel bad in both situations, because all I'd want to do is maximally help them, and either of these options isn't that. "I think if everyone acted according to your principles, there would be a net gain in human misery." That's funny because I thought the same about your views. There are people on the left that want to shut down trade with China or Bangladesh because they view low wages as exploitative. They would condemn these people to the outcome of poverty and death because of their ad hoc ethical rules that have no grounding in outcomes. "If I had realized you thought it was literally impossible for any employer to behave unethically toward an employee" I said the opposite. Look at my list of assumptions. In those assumptions are all the typical violations of the employee to employer power dynamic, such as unexpected surprises after the contract is signed (say, unexpected occupational hazard, whatever), deceptive fine print in the contract, pressure tactics to get them to agree to something they don't want to, and so on. That's hardly a Randian perspective. Rand thinks none of these things are possible because people are rational creatures that will never agree to something that isn't in their best interest.