Whose Lives Have Value?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
So you quickly fell into that old "Marxism" cliché, which you used as a weapon. In the US, falsely calling people by that name is akin to accusing straight people you don't like of being gay; it's an attempt to devalue the other by associating them with a stigmatised group. You asked for examples of your tendency to fall into the usual right wing clichés. That was one right there. Your "old man" rant about lazy people not wanting to work was a classic cliché.
I'm not much into PC so I tend to tread on the toes of the politically correct, as has happened with you here. I usually don't realise I'm being political incorrect when I am doing it - all I'm doing is mentioning the bleeding obvious in passing, on the way to my main point.
For instance, the observation about the exploitation of employees by corporates dangling a work-free utopia in front of them was subsidiary to my main point. That is, value in broader society is conferred on the basis of wealth and fame.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
Well, first, my comments regarding the basis of property is not a "theory;" they were reports of historical facts, of which I've provided abundant evidence in previous posts.
Secondly, what I said required arguments from self-evident, morally neutral premises were claims alleging moral duties, not claims regarding ownership of property. The latter are not even moral questions; they're factual ones.
So, please set forth the moral arguments for the duties you allege we all have.
Well, if you see no need to provide rational arguments for the duties you assert, why are espousing them on a philosophy forum?As I've stated before, I don't see the need to argue my position from "first principles". For one thing, I think morality is analogical as much as it is logical.
"Analogical"? Does that mean, "If it feels good, do it"?
Sorry, but, again, unless you produce sound arguments for that "duty" and spell out what is to count as "morally significant," your "principle" is vacuous. So you're back to the obligation of setting forth a rationally defensible moral theory.However, in the interests of debate, I'd suggest that some of the following principles might seem reasonbable.
1) It is the moral duty of citizens to follow the laws of the land unless they have a morally significant reason not to.
Methinks you haven't been following all of these moral threads too closely. The "greatest good for the greatest number" is undeterminable, because what counts as "the good" is subjective and idiosyncratic, varying from person to person. Determining it requires interpersonal comparisons of utility, but there is no "utility yardstick" against which the utility of different things to different people can be measured. That is an intractable problem of social choice theory.2) The greatest good for the greatest number suggests that the minor inconvenience to rich people of paying taxes (minor because they can't spend all their money anyway) is trumped by the major benefit of providing a safety net for poor people.
That is a pragmatic argument, not a moral one. It is the "torches and pitchforks" argument ("If we don't meet their demands they'll storm the castle with torches and pitchforks"). Morally, it is a version of the ad baculum argument.3) Providing a safety net for poor people helps preserve a stable society, from which everyone benefits (especially the elite).
It doesn't suggest that to me. To me it suggests, "You respect my rights and I'll respect yours."4) "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" suggests that we DO have a duty to help the poor, if (given that we might be poor) we would want others to help us.
To what principles of mine do you refer? The ones you offer above are neither self-evident, empirically verifiable, or morally neutral. They are all merely recitations of culturally-conditioned moral intuitions which their exponents have never subjected to serious philosophical scrutiny.Are these principles at least as "self-evident" and "empirically verifiable and morally neutral" as yours? Yes they are.
Anyone who sets out to engage in moral philosophy needs to follow Descartes example and set whatever moral intuitions they bring to the inquiry aside, subject to doubt. Then set about to justify them on rational grounds. Otherwise, their moral "theories" will amount to nothing more than circular arguments leading back to pre-conceived conclusions.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
Oh, I tolerate them all the time. But I always challenge those claims, because they're false (when "exploit" is used in the 2nd sense I gave above).
I've never "ranted" about "lazy people not wanting to work." In fact, I'm sure I've never used the words "lazy people" on this forum. If I did and have forgotten it, please link the post.Your "old man" rant about lazy people not wanting to work was a classic cliché.
It would help if, when criticizing some argument or claim I (or anyone else) has made, if you would quote the exact statement with which you disagree, rather than some "interpretation" of your own, or paraphrases of your own devising, which are invariably straw men.
Well, I don't disagree that many people assign value to others on those bases. But with regard to that "dangling," why would those "exploiters" dangle that promise unless they thought it would appeal to their audience? Are you suggesting they're "exploiting" their ignorance, their greed, or their longing for a free lunch?For instance, the observation about the exploitation of employees by corporates dangling a work-free utopia in front of them was subsidiary to my main point. That is, value in broader society is conferred on the basis of wealth and fame.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
If machines can do all the work, why would you judge people for not working? Do you believe that people live to work and that automation robs humans of function and meaning? Do you believe that people who do not work have zero value?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
Oh, free lunchers are a much larger class than "lazy people."Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 10:39 pm You saved me from going looking for your post because you did it again, carrying on about people "longing for a free lunch". How would you parse this from "lazy people"? There's no semantic difference, which makes clear that my reporting of your complaints was fair, not a strawman at all, as you falsely assumed.
Now, of course, everyone enjoys a free lunch. But "free lunchers," as I use the term, are people who demand that others deliver them free lunches, under threat of force. That class includes everyone who accepts free lunches delivered by government, as the government collects the revenue to pay for them by force --- it includes subsidies to farmers; renters; home buyers; grocery shoppers; hospital patients; property developers; local governments for sewer, water, and other municipal services; local school districts; college students; local transit riders; Amtrak riders; numerous businesses; artists, opera companies, and dance troupes; airline passengers; scientists studying the mating habits of sow bugs (and endless other equally compelling questions). I.e., just about everyone whose vote is sought by some politician. Most of those with their hands out are not lazy. And, of course, the more free lunches it delivers, the more hands that go out: "Where's mine!?"
The free luncher class also includes the self-helpers, i.e., thieves, burglars, purse-snatchers, scammers, street muggers, etc.
I already answered that. Because the machines are the products of someone else's time, talents, and labor. Someone who buys or builds a machine that can do his work for him is perfectly entitled to give up work. But he is not entitled to force others to give him a machine, or any goods it produces.If machines can do all the work, why would you judge people for not working? Do you believe that people live to work and that automation robs humans of function and meaning? Do you believe that people who do not work have zero value?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
That's bull, GE, and you know it. The context was the conflict of interest between employers in the 70s hoping to save money with automation and unions, whose members would be made redundant. Unions were convinced to not react to layoffs because automation offered the possibility of reduced hours, even a leisure society. I noted that this was basically a con job.
In response, you complained that the workers were just looking for a "free lunch" - an accusation of laziness. It had nothing to do with burglars or the like, yes?
If we are to judge rent seekers, let's not forget tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires, who throw the tax burden on to those less able to afford it. This dynamic is decimating the middle class. Rupert Murdoch has not paid a cent of tax in Australia for seven years, and he has earned billions.
But that doesn't matter because the middle class doesn't matter, right? Only VIPs and power players matter to society today. The middle class and the poor are treated as an amorphous, and sometimes inconvenient, mob, to be placated with pork barrelling come election time.
That is not an answer. If people cannot find work that pays because all of the work is automated, what do you expect the people to live on?GE Morton wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pmI already answered that. Because the machines are the products of someone else's time, talents, and labor. Someone who buys or builds a machine that can do his work for him is perfectly entitled to give up work. But he is not entitled to force others to give him a machine, or any goods it produces.If machines can do all the work, why would you judge people for not working? Do you believe that people live to work and that automation robs humans of function and meaning? Do you believe that people who do not work have zero value?
If society requires a certain level of unemployment to function (and as automation increases, that level is increasing) then the society is morally obligated to pay the unemployed enough money to live. Further, as the ranks of unemployed grow, if they are not provided with a living allowance then local demand will collapse; businesses need customers.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
Er, does a "leisure society" not entail free lunches?Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 16th, 2021, 2:24 amThat's bull, GE, and you know it. The context was the conflict of interest between employers in the 70s hoping to save money with automation and unions, whose members would be made redundant. Unions were convinced to not react to layoffs because automation offered the possibility of reduced hours, even a leisure society. I noted that this was basically a con job.
In response, you complained that the workers were just looking for a "free lunch" - an accusation of laziness. It had nothing to do with burglars or the like, yes?
Oh, many businesses are free lunchers as well, though not because they avoid taxes, but because they seek and obtain lavish government subsidies for their products, such as "affordable" housing developers, producers of solar cells and wind generators, recipients of "competitiveness grants," private colleges and trade schools which depend on government-subsidized students, etc. Whether or not a business is improperly avoiding taxes depends upon what those businesses owe, based on the value of the services they receive from government --- not on how much they can afford.If we are to judge rent seekers, let's not forget tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires, who throw the tax burden on to those less able to afford it. This dynamic is decimating the middle class. Rupert Murdoch has not paid a cent of tax in Australia for seven years, and he has earned billions.
It certainly is an answer. The question was, "to what is the worker entitled?", not "what does the worker need?" He is not entitled to anyone else's services or to the products of anyone else's labor, regardless of his needs.That is not an answer. If people cannot find work that pays because all of the work is automated, what do you expect the people to live on?GE Morton wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pm I already answered that. Because the machines are the products of someone else's time, talents, and labor. Someone who buys or builds a machine that can do his work for him is perfectly entitled to give up work. But he is not entitled to force others to give him a machine, or any goods it produces.
And, of course, your premise is false. "All of the work" will never be automated. Human desires are endless, and so is human imagination. When a machine replaces a human worker, that worker can exercise that imagination to provide a product or service that will satisfy --- or create --- some new human desire, as has occurred repeatedly throughout economic history. Unless, of course, his only ambition is to join the "leisure society" and subsist on free lunches. There will never be a shortage of work.
You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?If society requires a certain level of unemployment to function (and as automation increases, that level is increasing) then the society is morally obligated to pay the unemployed enough money to live. Further, as the ranks of unemployed grow, if they are not provided with a living allowance then local demand will collapse; businesses need customers.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
Don't you realize the absurdity of that view? In a consumer society the vast majority of folks like vacation trips, sports cars, fancy restaurants, designer clothes etc that subsistance stipends don't allow for and thus seek employment.GE Morton wrote: ↑October 16th, 2021, 11:33 amEr, does a "leisure society" not entail free lunches?Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 16th, 2021, 2:24 amThat's bull, GE, and you know it. The context was the conflict of interest between employers in the 70s hoping to save money with automation and unions, whose members would be made redundant. Unions were convinced to not react to layoffs because automation offered the possibility of reduced hours, even a leisure society. I noted that this was basically a con job.
In response, you complained that the workers were just looking for a "free lunch" - an accusation of laziness. It had nothing to do with burglars or the like, yes?
Oh, many businesses are free lunchers as well, though not because they avoid taxes, but because they seek and obtain lavish government subsidies for their products, such as "affordable" housing developers, producers of solar cells and wind generators, recipients of "competitiveness grants," private colleges and trade schools which depend on government-subsidized students, etc. Whether or not a business is improperly avoiding taxes depends upon what those businesses owe, based on the value of the services they receive from government --- not on how much they can afford.If we are to judge rent seekers, let's not forget tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires, who throw the tax burden on to those less able to afford it. This dynamic is decimating the middle class. Rupert Murdoch has not paid a cent of tax in Australia for seven years, and he has earned billions.
It certainly is an answer. The question was, "to what is the worker entitled?", not "what does the worker need?" He is not entitled to anyone else's services or to the products of anyone else's labor, regardless of his needs.That is not an answer. If people cannot find work that pays because all of the work is automated, what do you expect the people to live on?GE Morton wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pm I already answered that. Because the machines are the products of someone else's time, talents, and labor. Someone who buys or builds a machine that can do his work for him is perfectly entitled to give up work. But he is not entitled to force others to give him a machine, or any goods it produces.
And, of course, your premise is false. "All of the work" will never be automated. Human desires are endless, and so is human imagination. When a machine replaces a human worker, that worker can exercise that imagination to provide a product or service that will satisfy --- or create --- some new human desire, as has occurred repeatedly throughout economic history. Unless, of course, his only ambition is to join the "leisure society" and subsist on free lunches. There will never be a shortage of work.
You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?If society requires a certain level of unemployment to function (and as automation increases, that level is increasing) then the society is morally obligated to pay the unemployed enough money to live. Further, as the ranks of unemployed grow, if they are not provided with a living allowance then local demand will collapse; businesses need customers.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... a%2C%2094).
Living labor is done with conscious attention or self awareness or our relationship with higher consciousness. Dead labor is a mechanical process. It is a skill that requires no self awareness but just a government to tell people what to do. But if a person lacks the quality of conscious attention necessary to respect life, how can they understand the spirituality of work? People cannot which is why there is this mad rush for the blindness of technology. It isn't what is done which creates living labor but the human quality of how it is done. Conscious attention is the awakening influence. Machine support dead labor. Man can use machines but when machines use Man, culture must die.Abstract
This essay argues that Simone Weil appropriates Marx's notion of labor as life activity in order to reposition work as the site of spirituality. Rather than locating spirituality in a religious tradition, doctrine, profession of faith, or in personal piety, Weil places it in the capacity to work. Spirit arises in the activity of living, and more specifically in laboring—in one's engagement with materiality. Utilizing Marx's distinction between living and dead labor, I show how Weil develops a critique of capital as a “force” that disrupts the individual's relation to her own work by reducing it to the mere activity of calculable “production.” Capital reduces labor to an abstraction and thereby uproots human subjectivity, on a systemic scale, from its connection to living praxis, or what Weil calls spirituality. Life itself is exchanged for a simulacrum of life. In positioning living labor as spiritual, Weil's work offers a corrective to these deadening practices.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
Oh, but the champions of the "leisure society" will insist that those are "necessities" also, if the unemployed are not to be relegated to 2nd-class citizen status. After all, the UN Charter of Human Rights guarantees that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure . . ." (Article 24), and "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care . . ." (Article 25). We already hear arguments that well-being requires smart phones and access to broadband Internet, convenient means of transportation, free college educations, and (presumably) whatever else may be required for everyone "to reach their full potential."LuckyR wrote: ↑October 16th, 2021, 12:04 pmDon't you realize the absurdity of that view? In a consumer society the vast majority of folks like vacation trips, sports cars, fancy restaurants, designer clothes etc that subsistance stipends don't allow for and thus seek employment.You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?
No sports cars, though. Those are frivolous, climate-damaging status symbols, unnecessary when everyone has access to free public transportation.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
Ah yes, the 'ol slippery slope dodge. Yes, we all know that welfare Queens drive Cadillacs, oh wait that was a Reagan era myth that only the most gullible fall for.GE Morton wrote: ↑October 16th, 2021, 1:36 pmOh, but the champions of the "leisure society" will insist that those are "necessities" also, if the unemployed are not to be relegated to 2nd-class citizen status. After all, the UN Charter of Human Rights guarantees that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure . . ." (Article 24), and "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care . . ." (Article 25). We already hear arguments that well-being requires smart phones and access to broadband Internet, convenient means of transportation, free college educations, and (presumably) whatever else may be required for everyone "to reach their full potential."LuckyR wrote: ↑October 16th, 2021, 12:04 pmDon't you realize the absurdity of that view? In a consumer society the vast majority of folks like vacation trips, sports cars, fancy restaurants, designer clothes etc that subsistance stipends don't allow for and thus seek employment.You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?
No sports cars, though. Those are frivolous, climate-damaging status symbols, unnecessary when everyone has access to free public transportation.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
Did you consider the next step for even a moment? This is not a static model, as per your libertarian ideology, but real life that continues after the sackings. The new jobs will also be replaced by machines, needing very few high level functionaries as oversight.GE Morton wrote: ↑October 16th, 2021, 11:33 amYou don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?If society requires a certain level of unemployment to function (and as automation increases, that level is increasing) then the society is morally obligated to pay the unemployed enough money to live. Further, as the ranks of unemployed grow, if they are not provided with a living allowance then local demand will collapse; businesses need customers.
Your simplistic worldview holds that, if most jobs are taken by machines (and they will be) then the former workers should be left to starve and die, which you would see as preferable to handing out "free lunches".
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
At first glance, the average person''s value will only be as a data source in the future, but if they make no money, advertisers won't care. However, study of masses of regular people may be useful in designing machine intelligence, for a while.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Whose Lives Have Value?
How insulting! Of course the kid will be cancelled and sent to Timbuktu for reeducation for daring to challenge experts but what if he is right. Doesn't conscience work with the same principle? Secular Man or the Man of senses only values what the senses verify regardless of how absurd it proves to be in the world. Since the universal values of conscience is personal and only available to those having gone beyond subjective morality, let the kid out of jail and let the world fight over subjective morality. The spiritual influence of these rare ones are more important
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023