3 ms·
This is an example of a practical concern that I'm not sure meshes with what we might presume is our shared philosophical underpinnings. Why is the burden plac
by Zetice 4y ago
This is an example of a practical concern that I'm not sure meshes with what we might presume is our shared philosophical underpinnings.
Why is the burden placed on the employer to grow their employee and not the human being to grow themselves? In a generic sense, it could be outside of the purview of the employer to consider the employee's future in that specific way (in other ways it makes more sense, like health and happiness while employed).
It seems oddly paternalistic, to me, and once you remove that moral presumption doesn't the conversation become more complex?
- juvvel 4y agoSince companies do need workers and working is mandatory in our society, it seems weird to expect people to always be ready (and able) to mold themselves into whatever a company wants at the snap of a finger just so they're "allowed" to work in the first place.
- Zetice 4y agoAh but isn't "working is mandatory in our society" an "is" argument, not an "ought" argument? Ought jobs be mandatory in our society? That seems like a better question. Even if we did presume that jobs should be required in society, how would it even work for a job creator to preemptively know what skills were needed with enough time to ensure at your current job you were trained for future jobs? Why would that fall to your current employer?