Individualism

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 85
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Sure.

And I previously agreed that we can be an individual within a group.

However, my contention was and still is,  that we are never wholly separate from the group......Namely, society, and it's provisions.

And you did state that Sermonism is a four member party of individuals.

And I'm not certain that financially contributing to something or not, really makes a difference.




#32
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
And I'm not certain that financially contributing to something or not, really makes a difference.
I see what you're saying on the other comments, but I oppose the above. According to the FEC, which adminstrates such things, contributions are a significant registration issue.
#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Certainly.

But that's all part of an interactive system.


Nonetheless and to conclude:

As I see it.....Individualism is at best, individuality within a collection of individuals.
#34
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
begorrah

speaking of WB Yeats, I once encountered a germane toast attributed to Yeats:

A statesman is an easy goat, he tells his lies by rote,
A journalist invents his lies and rams them down your throat,
So stay at home and drink your fill and let your neighbors vote.

btw: are you still wake, or awakened for the new day?

#35
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Is that what is known as cross-referencing.

And I was thinking the same thing........I'm up for the day......And you're about, at a time most Americans aren't.
#36
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
And you're about, at a time most Americans aren't.
Volo.
My day typically ends around 03:00. Typical rising: 09:00 My version of Bennie Franklin: early to bed.
#37
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Well...It's 08.15 here and time to go do other things.

Au revoir.
Topic's author
#38
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Because, again, you are not understanding - its more than just physical ease of access -its also an ease of "ethical" access - they know they will be punished  - which is a type of access - how can you get away with it.
#39
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Athias
It isn't that I dislike the term. The qualification of individualism or individualists as "extreme" is inapplicable, because individualist principles are not polarized or polarizing. I'm not confused by what you meant. I know what you meant and I'm objecting to it.
If you know what I meant, then you know what I meant by this:

You are correct that if the orthodox intellectual concept of individualism is applied consistently as the only part of one's moral calculus then you oppose compulsory taxation
And so it is obvious then that we are in agreement and should move on from semantics.

 If they don't violate individual rights per se, then what is your point? What is the purpose and intention of citing inaction in the context of individualist philosophy?
Like I said: 

I am not an individualist in the typical sense because I think there are some circumstances where the use of force to violate individual rights is justified. However, I do agree that people should not exist as means to an end 
Part of the driving force of individualism is that it rejects that people's lives are subservient to groups and interests. This is something I tend to agree with.

Side constraints upon action reflect the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means; they may not be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia (pp. 30-31). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.
What bothers me about individualism is the rigid set of ethical principles it has become. Individualists like you broadly consider any use of initiatory force against an individual as impermissible but completely ignore any maltreatment of individuals that does not employ the obvious use of force (i.e. my business example). People are used in very similar ways if the aforementioned business used initiatory force to gain workers or it didn't, but somehow the former is a great violation of individualist ethics whereas the latter is totally permissible. Individualism now includes far too much and yet excludes far too much as well in a vain attempt to be as objective as possible. 
Individualism doesn't prevent people from becoming resources.
Well that's a problem with individualism.  

Individualism scrutinizes the interactions and transactions of individuals and objects to arrangements that are coerced or created through duress. If each participant is willing, then what violation has occurred?
One participant in the aforementioned business-worker interaction would ideally not consent to the deal, but they have been put in circumstances where they have to. Consent in an ideal situation is obviously different in circumstance than consent in a non-ideal situation. It is wrong to treat people poorly relative to how they could reasonably be treated and use them as means to ends. 

So corporations cause starvation, that is they physically cause blood sugar and insulin levels to drop for extended periods of time by ending a professional arrangement?
Corporations can neglect to treat workers better when they are reasonably able to. That is immoral. They don't cause death physically, but through a chain of events set off by, for example, the ending of a professional arrangement, people end up dying. 

So the prospect of any would-be employee who's left to their own devices would be starvation or terrible work conditions in Capitalism?
No, but I imagine that would be the prospects for many of them. 

How is the corporation in any of your examples responsible for the "restricted choice" of a prospective employee?
How much choice do you have when you are dead or working under shitty conditions and with shitty payment for doing so? The corporation is responsible for these conditions in that they, as the people with power in the arrangement, chose to make the conditions as terrible as they could without dis-incentivizing people from working for them. 
#40
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Athias
How are they empowered under Capitalism to fuck up the planet?
They're allowed to emit dangerous chemicals into the air, the ground, etc. How much they're allowed to do that depends. 
#41
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because, again, you are not understanding - its more than just physical ease of access -its also an ease of "ethical" access - they know they will be punished  - which is a type of access - how can you get away with it.
So again I ask, what of person's own moral constitution? Or does the government necessarily make a personal moral?

#42
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Username
If you know what I meant, then you know what I meant by this:

You are correct that if the orthodox intellectual concept of individualism is applied consistently as the only part of one's moral calculus then you oppose compulsory taxation
And so it is obvious then that we are in agreement and should move on from semantics.
It's not obvious to you. You're using other's consideration of individualism to qualify individualism. Individualism is its own set of tenets and principles and its application in someone's moral calculus doesn't qualify individualism in any particular way. This is what you don't understand. We can elide your maintaining these inapplicable characterizations, but as long as you maintain them, I'll continue to object to it, your preference against "semantics" notwithstanding.


Like I said: 

I am not an individualist in the typical sense because I think there are some circumstances where the use of force to violate individual rights is justified. However, I do agree that people should not exist as means to an end 
Part of the driving force of individualism is that it rejects that people's lives are subservient to groups and interests. This is something I tend to agree with.
What does this have to do with inaction in the context of individualist philosophy?

What bothers me about individualism is the rigid set of ethical principles it has become. Individualists like you broadly consider any use of initiatory force against an individual as impermissible but completely ignore any maltreatment of individuals that does not employ the obvious use of force (i.e. my business example). People are used in very similar ways if the aforementioned business used initiatory force to gain workers or it didn't, but somehow the former is a great violation of individualist ethics whereas the latter is totally permissible.
Because the former is derived through coercion, and the latter is derived through voluntarism. There's a clear distinction.

Well that's a problem with individualism.  
Why is it a problem?

One participant in the aforementioned business-worker interaction would ideally not consent to the deal, but they have been put in circumstances where they have to.
Whether he or she consents is up to him. And the circumstances that influence said consent is not the responsibility/liability of his/her would be employer. So how is entering a willful arrangement, even if one party consents because of less than ideal circumstances identical or even similar to a coerced arrangement?

Consent in an ideal situation is obviously different in circumstance than consent in a non-ideal situation.
No, it isn't. Absent of coercion or duress, consent is consent. The circumstances which influence consent is something everyone must consider.

Corporations can neglect to treat workers better when they are reasonably able to. That is immoral. They don't cause death physically, but through a chain of events set off by, for example, the ending of a professional arrangement, people end up dying. 
So corporations in your scenario are responsible are responsible for people who end up dying by ending a professional arrangement? How so? Expand on this chain of events and the corporation's responsibility in each link.

No, but I imagine that would be the prospects for many of them. 
How much is many?

How much choice do you have when you are dead or working under shitty conditions and with shitty payment for doing so? The corporation is responsible for these conditions in that they, as the people with power in the arrangement, chose to make the conditions as terrible as they could without dis-incentivizing people from working for them. 
And a would-be employee has no responsibility in that exercising his/her power, whether it be to sell or withhold his/her labor, in declining these so-called shitty conditions? Why is a corporation responsible for discouraging people's working for them, as opposed to a would-be employee as opposed to an employee's deciding not work in shitty conditions?

They're allowed to emit dangerous chemicals into the air, the ground, etc. How much they're allowed to do that depends. 
How does Capitalism empower this?

Topic's author
#43
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Of course not - but it allows widespread correction of moral wrongs GENERALLY - so - without government - black people would still be enslaved, hispanic people would still be living in practical serfdom, etc, etc... See - you and I have very different perspectives on what propagates harm more - while the government was indeed responsible for atrocities, it was a government MOTIVATED by capitalism, so how you see government, I see capitalism. 

Government changes - its values, its principles - capitalism will always be about profit, that is the bottom line.
#44
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
People complain about capitalism all the time but nations without it pollute and have issues as well. In general the West which is in essence capitalist probably has more restrictions to help those areas as they can. Consumerism is more the issue, which falls to the individual. There are whole businesses now coming up to address issues like what is being discussed. Packaging is changing. Products are environment friendly. Waste disposal companies. All due to capitalism and individuals seeing a market or a need to fill. 
#45
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Of course not - but it allows widespread correction of moral wrongs GENERALLY - so - without government - black people would still be enslaved
Actually, it does not. On "scale" governments commit the most heinous "moral wrongs."  As far as "black people being enslaved," that's an issue for another subject. But for now, it suffices to say this: chattel slavery was legal. Your point is undermined.

#46
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
it was a government MOTIVATED by capitalism, so how you see government, I see capitalism. 
Governments cannot be Capitalistic, much less motivated by Capitalism. The government is a public entity.

Government changes - its values, its principles
No, it doesn't. Administrations change. It's political ideologies change. But the values and principles of government do not change.

capitalism will always be about profit, that is the bottom line.
And the profit motive has no benefit? It has produced no moral good?
Topic's author
#47
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
You do realize that the REASON for chattel slavery was the profit right? Are you that ignorant of basic history - governments are MOTIVATED by the profit of capitalism - and they take on those economic theories (ya know - because the government enforces laws regarding economic theory) - which hurts people. Your argument is wholly ignoring the actual facts: "Oh my god! The government ONCE allowed chattel slavery." That's the thing IT CHANGED and then prohibited others from doing it - which is a moral good - in contrast - the only way capitalism would change is if it was no longer profitable, there is no care more any level of ethics - if capitalism is the only standard applicable, there is no ethical standard, period.
#48
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
You do realize that the REASON for chattel slavery was the profit right?
I would presume so.

Are you that ignorant of basic history
I'm actually quite versed in "basic history" but that's irrelevant.

governments are MOTIVATED by the profit of capitalism
Governments CANNOT BE Capitalistic. This is tautological.

and they take on those economic theories (ya know - because the government enforces laws regarding economic theory)
Yes, the government implements economic policy.

which hurts people.
How has Capitalism hurt people?

Your argument is wholly ignoring the actual facts: "Oh my god! The government ONCE allowed chattel slavery."
I'm not that animated. You brought up slavery. And chattel slavery was legal. So your point is undermined.

That's the thing IT CHANGED and then prohibited others from doing it - which is a moral good - in contrast - the only way capitalism would change is if it was no longer profitable
It did not do this for moral reasons. The emancipation proclamation didn't actually "free the (black) slaves," it attempted to dissolve the confederate forces, and hence the reason it was implemented ONLY WITHIN THE CONFEDERATE STATES. Chattel slavery was still legal in the Union, especially in the border states, who were promised no legal prohibition if they didn't secede. The industry employing chattel slavery was already diminishing in the South. The emancipation proclamation was Lincoln's ploy to win over so-called "free blacks" to the side of the Union.

there is no care more any level of ethics - if capitalism is the only standard applicable, there is no ethical standard, period.
Since when did one presume that Capitalism was a standard of ethics? The topic over which we debate is individualism, right?

Topic's author
#49
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Um... you realize that the Union states were ALREADY SLAVE FREE? Right? You realize that slavery was abolished as a general practice informally by the Pittsburg addressed, and officially through the 13th amendment. You don't appear very well versed in history, only in misinterpreting it to agree with your biases.

And simple - because PROFIT does not care for what is ethical - it's that simple - there is no inherent framework in profit that makes any ethical declarations - and since the core goal of capitalism is profit  -  yeah - it follows easily. Capitalism - whose goal is profit - was the direct motivation for slavery - and yes - capitalism can and does influence and motivate governments, you claim it to be a tautology, but fail to actually explain how - only assert that it is the case. 

Again - you merely stating something to be the case isn't evidence of anything.

My point is that capitalism - the only standard which one can have without the "STATE" isn't giving any ethical considerations - which is my point individualism has no standard which prohibits mass unethical practice. 
#50
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Athias
I'm going to summarize why I believe what I believe here because right now these lines of argument are becoming very large and inefficient. Also, the parts of this conversation where you  ask me why people have positive obligations to other people are the most foundational. 

Every individual is worthy of moral consideration. Their life, as a whole, cannot be rendered subservient to other people's lives because it's very possible that they only experience their life and then the rest of everything is oblivion. Thus it's vital that they don't spend this small and deeply important period of time as a tool for other people who are equal to them. You may not consider this "individualism", but it at least has a nexus with individualism focused on the individual's interests over the "greater good". This "side-constraint" allows us to create societies where everyone is considered (at least ideally). 

Thus, the moral consideration afforded to each person's life makes up a large part of the basis of the obligations that people have towards each other. People, even if they do not "violate" per se individual rights, have obligations not to use them as tools or means to a end and not make it harder for them to leave their own valuable lives. That's why I believe that businesses have obligations to treat people at least fairly well, and why capitalism, as a system that does not impose that standard, is a flawed system. It allows people i.e. corporate entities to use people as means to ends in environmental cases, in cases of employment, etc. These are not the *only* values I have, but it's an important part of the way I think about ethics. 

Based on how "individualism" is currently defined, you are probably more of an individualist than me, and so I would be curious why you only care about maintaining contracts, consent, non-aggression, etc. Because that is the difference between our two views. 
#51
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... you realize that the Union states were ALREADY SLAVE FREE? Right? You realize that slavery was abolished as a general practice informally by the Pittsburg addressed, and officially through the 13th amendment. You don't appear very well versed in history, only in misinterpreting it to agree with your biases.
No, it wasn't. The Border states were allowed to practice chattel slavery. (Hence my reason for mentioning them.) Go ahead and verify it.

And yes, I am very well versed in history. Saying that I don't "appear" to be, doesn't mean that I'm not.

And simple - because PROFIT does not care for what is ethical - it's that simple - there is no inherent framework in profit that makes any ethical declarations - and since the core goal of capitalism is profit  -  yeah - it follows easily. Capitalism - whose goal is profit - was the direct motivation for slavery - and yes - capitalism can and does influence and motivate governments, you claim it to be a tautology, but fail to actually explain how - only assert that it is the case. 

Again - you merely stating something to be the case isn't evidence of anything.

Do you know what tautology means? If you do, then simply looking up Capitalism will demonstrate the reason governments CANNOT BE Capitalistic. I even mentioned government's being public entities as a reason.  I didn't merely state as a form of evidence. I merely presumed that you were capable of a google search.

My point is that capitalism - the only standard which one can have without the "STATE" isn't giving any ethical considerations - which is my point individualism has no standard which prohibits mass unethical practice. 
And my point is, why are you conflating Capitalism with individualism? And demonstrate that individualism has no standard which prohibits mass unethical practice. Remember, mere statements aren't evidence.
Topic's author
#52
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Are you actually serious right now? Seriously - my god you can be daft -- the fact that the system itself is not CONTROLLED by the state, does not mean that the state itself IS NOT capitalistic. 

It's a fairly simple principle - if a government encourages capitalism, does everything it can to protect it, and has the precise same goal as capitalism THEN THAT GOVERNMENT IS EFFECTIVELY capitalistic. Like.. its such a simple idea, and your semantics are getting rather old. 

If there is no way to enforce your own will over another individual - if we are focusing on individualism - then there is literally no way to PROHIBIT anything - there are no guarantees about literally anything -by the mere definition of individualism - its kind of ironic how you fail to see that given your argument regarding capitilsim 
#53
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Username
I'm going to summarize why I believe what I believe here because right now these lines of argument are becoming very large and inefficient. Also, the parts of this conversation where you  ask me why people have positive obligations to other people are the most foundational. 

Every individual is worthy of moral consideration. Their life, as a whole, cannot be rendered subservient to other people's lives because it's very possible that they only experience their life and then the rest of everything is oblivion. Thus it's vital that they don't spend this small and deeply important period of time as a tool for other people who are equal to them. You may not consider this "individualism", but it at least has a nexus with individualism focused on the individual's interests over the "greater good". This "side-constraint" allows us to create societies where everyone is considered (at least ideally). 

Thus, the moral consideration afforded to each person's life makes up a large part of the basis of the obligations that people have towards each other. People, even if they do not "violate" per se individual rights, have obligations not to use them as tools or means to a end and not make it harder for them to leave their own valuable lives. That's why I believe that businesses have obligations to treat people at least fairly well, and why capitalism, as a system that does not impose that standard, is a flawed system. It allows people i.e. corporate entities to use people as means to ends in environmental cases, in cases of employment, etc. These are not the *only* values I have, but it's an important part of the way I think about ethics. 

Based on how "individualism" is currently defined, you are probably more of an individualist than me, and so I would be curious why you only care about maintaining contracts, consent, non-aggression, etc. Because that is the difference between our two views. 

Let me start this off with an example. Let's say two individuals engage in a transaction. One individual is quite well-off, and the other poor, but quite skilled in the culinary arts. The well-off individual offers the poor individual five dollars an hour to be a personal chef. The poor individual has these options: (1) accept the offer, (2) reject the offer, (3) attempt a negotiation for a higher wage. These are at least the morally indemnified options. Now, the well-off individual learns the poor individual has children and requires a higher wage. The well-off individual can meet a wage that assists the other in financially supporting themselves and their children or maintain the initial position in the arrangement. Individualism would extend that whichever the well-off individual decides, it's up to him/her to decide the extent to which he/she is willing to participate. That is, to either push forward with his/her initial position in participation, negotiate the terms in which he/she is willing to participate, or renege on his/her participation. The same would be extended to the poor individual in that he/she can continue, end, or attempt to renegotiate the terms of his participation. Because both are individuals and can choose their associations. Choosing the extent to which one is willing to participate in an arrangement even if professional does not produce the other "harm."

Now let's reverse the scenarios somewhat. Let's say I'm a restaurateur and my business hasn't been doing all that well. I can't afford to let go any of my employees but I can't afford to pay them more either. If a number of my employees decide to quit in favor of higher paying alternatives, would they be producing me "harm" by producing a "chain of events which leads to my starvation"? Or do they not have the discretion to exit our employment arrangement regardless of its impact on business?

Your criticism of individualism is unilateral. You argued against people being used as tools, yet somehow attempt to just a positive right one has to having a job meet the circumstances that influence his/her participation, all while ignoring the terms that influence the employer's participation. The reason our views conflict, armoredcat, is that individualism is based on principle, not circumstance. Just as in the first scenario, I would argue that the well-off individual has no liability as far as the circumstances that befell the poor individual, I would argue just the same that the employees have no liability as far as the circumstances that befell their employer's business.
#54
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you actually serious right now? Seriously - my god you can be daft -- the fact that the system itself is not CONTROLLED by the state, does not mean that the state itself IS NOT capitalistic. 

It's a fairly simple principle - if a government encourages capitalism, does everything it can to protect it, and has the precise same goal as capitalism THEN THAT GOVERNMENT IS EFFECTIVELY capitalistic. Like.. its such a simple idea, and your semantics are getting rather old. 

If there is no way to enforce your own will over another individual - if we are focusing on individualism - then there is literally no way to PROHIBIT anything - there are no guarantees about literally anything -by the mere definition of individualism - its kind of ironic how you fail to see that given your argument regarding capitilsim 
So did you verify the fact that Border States were allowed to practice slavery despite their being part of the Union? Are we to just forget that point, especially since you brought up slavery?

Or are we going to continue to discuss your haphazard description of Capitalism? By description, the government cannot be Capitalistic, no if's and's or but's. You can assert some half-baked criterion for that which you consider Capitalist, but if it does not meet the description of production and dissemination of goods and services by private individuals AS OPPOSED TO A STATE OR GOVERNMENT, then what you believe to happen "IN EFFECT" does not matter.

As far as individualism, where did anyone argue that Individualism presumes to "prohibit"? Stop moving the goal-posts.
#55
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I'm right,

No I AM RIGHT

Saying you are right is not an argument.

Oh yeah? Well did you know that THIS IS true? That is proof of your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY!

No. Let me repeat, I am right.

It seems to me you are DELUSIONAL. I am NOT ANGRY.

'It seems' is not an argument. The clouds look nice today, I have stated to you the reasons why. If you choose to ignore that, it is your issue.

I have not IGNORED anything, I exposed your fallacious thinking and showed you that a blogger I like said the clouds are HIDEOUS TODAY.


#56
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm right,

No I AM RIGHT

Saying you are right is not an argument.

Oh yeah? Well did you know that THIS IS true? That is proof of your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY!

No. Let me repeat, I am right.

It seems to me you are DELUSIONAL. I am NOT ANGRY.

'It seems' is not an argument. The clouds look nice today, I have stated to you the reasons why. If you choose to ignore that, it is your issue.

I have not IGNORED anything, I exposed your fallacious thinking and showed you that a blogger I like said the clouds are HIDEOUS TODAY.
As usual, that was well thought out.

#57
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
And funny too :)
#58
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Athias
I do take into account the circumstances of the employer. But I think you're arguing against capitalism rather than defending it. 

Take the two circumstances you listed. We'll reduce it to an employer negotiating someone who is not doing well financially and employees leaving an employer who is not doing well financially. 

If I'm an employer employing someone who is not doing well financially, I could be doing well or less well financially. If I'm doing well, I might just be an asshole and want to milk as much money from this guy as I can while still getting him to work for me. If I'm doing poorly, I might need to pay this guy under crappy circumstances to feed my own family. Either way. Although, like you say, we both technically have decision making power in how this arrangement plays out and what ends up happening, I can use the threat of the alternative (that is, what happens to each party if the agreement doesn't work out) to make circumstances that would be ideally undesirable seem desirable in comparison. Whoever has a better/less bad alternative to the deal working out can probably leverage that power more. And I am incentivized to use the threat of the alternative because I need or want more money, usually. Whatever the employer's motivations are to use the employee and vice versa, it is not hard for situations to work out with someone getting used, or the agreement just falling apart altogether. I don't necessarily blame anyone for using anyone else in this situation given that it's so complicated, but it does ask* the question of whether this circumstance ought to have happened in the first place. 

Similarly, take the situation of employees leaving an employer who is doing poorly. Because he is doing poorly, they are incentivized to indirectly cause him to do even worse so that they can earn more. In this case and the above case, the employees might just be leaving this guy under a bus for a little more money or desperately be in need of it now that their source of income is all fucked up. I don't know if it would be accurate to say the employees are "using" him in this situation given that what they did was not a premeditated "use" but rather a reaction to circumstance, but either way these people have to fuck over this guy to get paid more. This also happens in the reverse, where companies have to lay people off to stay afloat. Once again, I don't necessarily blame anyone for harming anyone else in this situation given that it's so complicated, but it does ask* the question of whether this circumstance ought to have happened in the first place. 

I am far from optimistic or idealistic about what the socialist/non-capitalist alternative would be (I've flirted with socialism but never really committed to it) because that may have a host of other problems. I haven't heard you talk about why you disagree with my ethical views, but hopefully you can see that capitalism at least has some conflict with my views opposing the instrumentalization (if that's a word) of people. Hopefully that makes some sense. 


#59
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Athias
And I will concede to you that when I said corporations are ethically responsible for various harms that occur to workers I probably did not qualify that statement enough, given my last post. Hopefully you still get what I am saying though. 
#60
logicae
logicae's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 38
0
0
5
logicae's avatar
logicae
0
0
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Good question.

Perhaps all we can know about the individual is that we are. But certainly it is sacred.