5 ms·

For some people, jobs are hard to come by, I would wager the majority of TSA screeners do not have any better paying options, so to criticize them for being a p

For some people, jobs are hard to come by, I would wager the majority of TSA screeners do not have any better paying options, so to criticize them for being a part of a faulty system, or to paint them as being "from a sixth grade mentality", or "trying to get employed with border patrol asap" when they are just trying to provide for themselves and their families, who may not have better options, is pretty unfair. To criticize the people at the top, that may be fair argument. But for the higher ups and policy makers in the TSA, don't forget the old adage: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

smsm42 14y ago
This kind of argument can lead us to very bad place. People that work for the mob breaking people's kneecaps if they refuse to pay probably don't have better paying options too. But that doesn't excuse them. Participating in immoral activity for money isn't any better than doing it just because you are evil. Actually, I would venture to guess overwhelming majority of evil is done just because it puts food on someone's table. That does not excuse the ones who is doing it. Everyone who is participating in it shares the blame. And so does everyone who votes for it, too.
slowpoke 14y ago
>For some people, jobs are hard to come by, I would wager the majority of TSA screeners do not have any better paying options, so to criticize them for being a part of a faulty system, or to paint them as being "from a sixth grade mentality", or "trying to get employed with border patrol asap" when they are just trying to provide for themselves and their families, who may not have better options, is pretty unfair. I don't think so. It's very valid to criticize someone who works for a morally corrupt, unneeded and socially harmful agency, no matter the reason. Your argument is basically a sophisticated "but think of the children!!11oneone" appeal to emotion, ie not a valid argument. If there aren't any better job options (which I highly doubt), then it's another gigantic fucking failure of the government that needs to be fixed ASAP.
- DanBC 14y ago
  > Your argument is basically a sophisticated "but think of the children!!11oneone" appeal to emotion, ie not a valid argument. No. Criticising someone for engaging in lawful employment because you think that job is immoral is fine, but don't pretend there are no valid arguments for having that legal job. > If there aren't any better job options (which I highly doubt), We could have a look at job ads for TSA, and the requirements of the job, and then have a look for similar jobs; and then somehow find out how many people are applying for those jobs. And we don't know the churn rate of TSA. Perhaps people take work there and leave after 3 months because they realise it's "evil" or a waste of money or whatever.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > don't pretend there are no valid arguments for having that legal job. Is anybody? A valid argument for having a job does not place an individual above criticism.
clobber 14y ago
This sounds like a "just doing our duty" argument. If you work for the TSA you're not just contributing to the problem, you are the problem.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I don't think it is quite a Superior Orders defense, but it certainly does seem morally equivalent to me. "I did it for my starving family" and "I did it because my commanding officer would shoot me otherwise" are probably pretty related (some regimes do their best to blur the line between these), but I feel there should be another name for it.
  - epochwolf 14y ago
    If anything, the "commanding officer would shoot me" defense is greater than "I did it for my starving family". In the first case, you know for certain that you and your family will die if you don't do what you're told. In the latter, your family may be uncomfortable but it's highly unlikely for anyone living in America to actually starve. What makes this more damning is any TSA employee made a conscious choice to do morally reprehensible work. They had a choice. No one forced them to do their job. In this light, the TSA employees come off as more morally bankrupt than military officers that had a gun to their head. They choose to be active agents in destroying society in trade for their own comfort.
jlgreco 14y ago
I empathize with the people who have no other choice but to work for the TSA, that is a shitty place to be in life, but I reserve the right to at the same time criticize their job and them for doing it. The extension of your argument (and I have seen this said here many times before) is basically that we should not criticize Rhinoceros hunters because said hunters may just be trying to etch out a place for themselves and their starving family in this world. Yeah, it would suck to be in that position, but hunting Rhinos is still reprehensible. I understand why they do it, but I cannot condone it and I cannot withhold my criticism.

smsm42 14y ago

This kind of argument can lead us to very bad place. People that work for the mob breaking people's kneecaps if they refuse to pay probably don't have better paying options too. But that doesn't excuse them. Participating in immoral activity for money isn't any better than doing it just because you are evil. Actually, I would venture to guess overwhelming majority of evil is done just because it puts food on someone's table. That does not excuse the ones who is doing it. Everyone who is participating in it shares the blame. And so does everyone who votes for it, too.

slowpoke 14y ago

>For some people, jobs are hard to come by, I would wager the majority of TSA screeners do not have any better paying options, so to criticize them for being a part of a faulty system, or to paint them as being "from a sixth grade mentality", or "trying to get employed with border patrol asap" when they are just trying to provide for themselves and their families, who may not have better options, is pretty unfair. I don't think so. It's very valid to criticize someone who works for a morally corrupt, unneeded and socially harmful agency, no matter the reason. Your argument is basically a sophisticated "but think of the children!!11oneone" appeal to emotion, ie not a valid argument. If there aren't any better job options (which I highly doubt), then it's another gigantic fucking failure of the government that needs to be fixed ASAP.

DanBC 14y ago
> Your argument is basically a sophisticated "but think of the children!!11oneone" appeal to emotion, ie not a valid argument. No. Criticising someone for engaging in lawful employment because you think that job is immoral is fine, but don't pretend there are no valid arguments for having that legal job. > If there aren't any better job options (which I highly doubt), We could have a look at job ads for TSA, and the requirements of the job, and then have a look for similar jobs; and then somehow find out how many people are applying for those jobs. And we don't know the churn rate of TSA. Perhaps people take work there and leave after 3 months because they realise it's "evil" or a waste of money or whatever.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > don't pretend there are no valid arguments for having that legal job. Is anybody? A valid argument for having a job does not place an individual above criticism.

clobber 14y ago

This sounds like a "just doing our duty" argument. If you work for the TSA you're not just contributing to the problem, you are the problem.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jlgreco 14y ago
I don't think it is quite a Superior Orders defense, but it certainly does seem morally equivalent to me. "I did it for my starving family" and "I did it because my commanding officer would shoot me otherwise" are probably pretty related (some regimes do their best to blur the line between these), but I feel there should be another name for it.
- epochwolf 14y ago
  If anything, the "commanding officer would shoot me" defense is greater than "I did it for my starving family". In the first case, you know for certain that you and your family will die if you don't do what you're told. In the latter, your family may be uncomfortable but it's highly unlikely for anyone living in America to actually starve. What makes this more damning is any TSA employee made a conscious choice to do morally reprehensible work. They had a choice. No one forced them to do their job. In this light, the TSA employees come off as more morally bankrupt than military officers that had a gun to their head. They choose to be active agents in destroying society in trade for their own comfort.

jlgreco 14y ago

I empathize with the people who have no other choice but to work for the TSA, that is a shitty place to be in life, but I reserve the right to at the same time criticize their job and them for doing it. The extension of your argument (and I have seen this said here many times before) is basically that we should not criticize Rhinoceros hunters because said hunters may just be trying to etch out a place for themselves and their starving family in this world. Yeah, it would suck to be in that position, but hunting Rhinos is still reprehensible. I understand why they do it, but I cannot condone it and I cannot withhold my criticism.