JM, it does not satasfy me bcause the rat situation is NOT analogous to work. Working does not charge any figurative battery and there is no shock delivered, nor is there sentient being or entity to deliver it.
Are you suggesting that if I quite working I get punished by someone (besides my wife)? If I quite working, I get welfare, food stamps, medicare…I will be poor, but I am the one choosing that punishment should I decide not to be employed.
If you choose not to be part of the system (including the social safety net band-aid which is intended for those who want to work but can’t), you would be violating a social contract which says you should be a slave to money in order to survive and prosper, and this social contract is indeed generated by those who do work for money. While it is possible to avoid punishment with hope that the immoral people who generate the contract might have occasional bursts of what they call “charity” – that is never a guarantee, hence the risk of punishment is always there. And even that only applies because, I presume, you do not live in a socialist or communist or fascist country. Those people do not even have a choice, and you don’t seem to be factoring them into your moral equation at all.
Again, this social contract is indeed generated by those who do work for money. This can be proven by taking the situation to the extreme:
If no one worked for money, no one could buy food, etc. Since no one could afford to buy food, it would become worthless, and hence free. Thus, everyone could survive and prosper without money.
If no one in the silo works for the rich man he loses all power to force people to jump through certain hoops in exchange for food. He power is maintained by the fact the the majority of people go along with his conditions hence maintaining his control over who gets food and who does not.
When dealing with morality, you need to look at the big picture.
This thread belongs in IMHO. jmullaney has consistently failed to argue his point or respond to specific questions asked of him. His entire argument is axiomatic (in his little world anyway) and thus not subject to debate. Bye!
grem
I don’t wish to start debating about the debate, but what the heck are you talking about?
It’s best expressed in this little series:
Initial quotes are from jmullaney - interior quote is from ed
You’ve been consistently asked the question:
What makes “the system” immoral?
You answer is usually a variation of “it is immoral because it forces people to work for money”. You ignore all of the times others have pointed out that the system doesn’t force people to work for money. It forces people to work for survival (which is not a man-made concept). What is immoral about survival and the fact that it has to be worked for? Until you answer that question, you’re arguing from an axiom which is not accepted by anyone other than you.
After bringing up the “cavemen spent 20 hours a week working for survival” point, you were asked repeatedly for a cite. After several days, you finally said (paraphrase), “Oops can’t find one. Forget it, it’s not important anyway.”
Now we’re on to rats in some bizarre experiment. Again, refutation that the situations are not analagous not withstanding, you continue to repeat the basic argument as first presented with minor modifications.
Personally, I was a little peeved when I asked two very sepcific questions. I’ll repeat them here:
grem0517 asked:
jmullaney’s response was:
One, the logical fallacies contained in your response are stunning in scope. Two, you never answered the questions! Instead, we’ve moved away from the concept of leisure time vs. work time. Now apparently, because I disagree with you, I “have no idea what morallity(sic) is.” I support killing people for no reason. Bah!
Go take a basic logic course. It’ll help, I promise.
grem
**
I bowed out of this thread a while back for the same reasons you think it should be moved to IMHO. But for some reason I kept track of what was going on. In fact I almost posted earlier about this 20 hour a week caveman thing.
There was a study conducted by a French anthropologist comparing the lives of the Yanamomo of South America to that of French people. They defined leisure time in a very specific way but I don’t remember exactly how right now.
Anyway it turns out the each Yanomamo only had to work 3-4 hour a day to survive.
Of course the Yanomamo live in a fairly lush rain forest while my ancestors lived in the harsh climate of England, Scotland, and Germany. So perhaps my ancestors had to work longer then the Yanomamo. At any rate I remember how the Yanomamo lived and I can’t say I’d want to return to anything like it.
Marc
Now we’re on to rats in some bizarre experiment. Again, refutation that the situations are not analagous not withstanding, you continue to repeat the basic argument as first presented with minor modifications.
Personally, I was a little peeved when I asked two very sepcific questions. I’ll repeat them here:
grem0517 asked:
jmullaney’s response was:
One, the logical fallacies contained in your response are stunning in scope. Two, you never answered the questions! Instead, we’ve moved away from the concept of leisure time vs. work time. Now apparently, because I disagree with you, I “have no idea what morallity(sic) is.” I support killing people for no reason. Bah!
Go take a basic logic course. It’ll help, I promise.
grem
**
[/QUOTE]
**
I bowed out of this thread a while back for the same reasons you think it should be moved to IMHO. But for some reason I kept track of what was going on. In fact I almost posted earlier about this 20 hour a week caveman thing.
There was a study conducted by a French anthropologist comparing the lives of the Yanamomo of South America to that of French people. They defined leisure time in a very specific way but I don’t remember exactly how right now.
Anyway it turns out the each Yanomamo only had to work 3-4 hour a day to survive.
Of course the Yanomamo live in a fairly lush rain forest while my ancestors lived in the harsh climate of England, Scotland, and Germany. So perhaps my ancestors had to work longer then the Yanomamo. At any rate I remember how the Yanomamo lived and I can’t say I’d want to return to anything like it.
Marc
One more time:
I simply believe that freedom is better than slavery. And I would prefer freedom. Therefore, I should prefer freedom for others. But, by spending money I am encouraging their enslavement and by making the basis of my survival the working for and spending of money I endorse a social contract which deems that money is required for survival.
You seem to be ignoring my answer and then charging that I am not answering the question.
I am not saying people to not or should not work for survival. It is simply a question of whether or not the method of survival is moral or not. Some methods are moral, and some are not.
And it isn’t. I reserve the right to explore various angles to develope my argument in this thread and abandon angles which are immaterial to my point after further consideration.
You seem to be saying I am making a Big Lie argument, and saying that by repeating the same argument again and again I am attempting to make it true in light of good arguments to the contrary. However, I have yet to see any good arguments to the contrary, and repeating a statement which is true over and over does not make it false.
As I have stated in the OP, I am a slave to money and work for money for my survival. If you are requesting my services as a dictionary this can be arranged at five dollars per word – rates subject to change. Please e-mail me, and I will give you my adress. Upon reciept of payment in the sum of ten dollars for the definitions of these words, I will cut and paste the meanings given in the dictionary and return them to you in 4-6 weeks.
You are taking this out of context. You and ed made basically the same argument, to wit: “My friend Larry the artist doesn’t work very hard for money and I am not hurting him. Therefore, I’m not hurting anyone by working for money.”
I simply attempted to show you how absurd this argument was. If you do not understant reductio ab adsurdum perhaps you should take a logic course yourself.
You are operating on some begged questions and illogical analogies. Food can’t become “worthless” because it is both necesary and scarce. Everyone could stop buying it, but it would still have value. And as people began starving to death, it would be very valuable indeed.
JM, you also stated that people are punished by opting out of this social contract that you keep referring to. How are they punished. I am sure that there are plenty of people who barter, or who live at on hunting and farming (several homesteaders in alaska come to mind, as do some eskimo tribes.) How, exactly, are they punished?
With all do respect, you are not making a very strong case here. YOu assume , first of all that there is this contract. Second, you assume punishment for not working for money. Third, you assume that by earning and spending money, you harm others, but refuse to say how.
I could just as easily say that there is a contract to be bipedal and “they” punish you if you don’t buy into it. By walking upright, I am harming others and am immioral. How? Why? Who is “they”? I wont tell you.
One more time:
I simply believe that freedom is better than slavery. And I would prefer freedom. Therefore, I should prefer freedom for others. But, by spending money I am encouraging their enslavement and by making the basis of my survival the working for and spending of money I endorse a social contract which deems that money is required for survival.
You seem to be ignoring my answer and then charging that I am not answering the question.
I am not saying people to not or should not work for survival. It is simply a question of whether or not the method of survival is moral or not. Some methods are moral, and some are not.
And it isn’t. I reserve the right to explore various angles to develope my argument in this thread and abandon angles which are immaterial to my point after further consideration.
You seem to be saying I am making a Big Lie argument, and saying that by repeating the same argument again and again I am attempting to make it true in light of good arguments to the contrary. However, I have yet to see any good arguments to the contrary, and repeating a statement which is true over and over does not make it false.
As I have stated in the OP, I am a slave to money and work for money for my survival. If you are requesting my services as a dictionary this can be arranged at five dollars per word – rates subject to change. Please e-mail me, and I will give you my adress. Upon reciept of payment in the sum of ten dollars for the definitions of these words, I will cut and paste the meanings given in the dictionary and return them to you in 4-6 weeks.
You are taking this out of context. You and ed made basically the same argument, to wit: “My friend Larry the artist doesn’t work very hard for money and I am not hurting him. Therefore, I’m not hurting anyone by working for money.”
I simply attempted to show you how absurd this argument was. If you do not understant reductio ab adsurdum perhaps you should take a logic course yourself.
Ok, just because I’m bored this afternoon.
jmullaney
You have assumed that money = enslavement. The basic root of this assumption seems to be your insistence that money is necessary for survival. I think quite a few people have pointed out the basic flaw here. BTW, once again, you present everything following the “but” as axiomatic.
Finally, something we can agree on. Although, I would point out that your first sentence explains the problem with your basic premise. It is possible to work for survival without working for money. Hence, no moral dilemma (at least in relation to money).
In response to Mr.Zambezi jmullaney said:
This would imply that fault was found with your argument, hmm?
I will admit I got a little excited with this one, because you haven’t repeated it after the second round of fault finding.
I didn’t ask for the definition of work and leisure, I asked for your definitions. This is perfectly valid in a debate. As for your first sentence, simply saying “As I have stated in the OP, …” does not constitute an argument, it is the validity of the OP I take issue with. You have become your own authority.
Excuse me? I asked two questions, define work, define leisure. No mention of Larry the Artist. I don’t know Larry the Artist. You want to try again on this one? You may be confusing me with someone else.
Hmmm…Since the whole Larry thing was fabricated by you (at least in relation to me), I can’t see how reductio ab adsurdum applies. Maybe Straw Man?
grem
Food is necessary for sustaining life, yes. Of course, so is oxygen. However, oxygen does not have a price tag on it and as such is in effect, worthless. Food is occasionally scarce at some places at some times, but from my present location I can walk a few miles in any direction and find an abundance of food for sale and personally this has been the case for me during my entire life. If you have found a scarcity of food at your present location, I suggest you move to a location where this is not the case.
I’ll admit that there are peoples who have yet to be integrated into the global economy at the present time. I don’t think just anyone would be allowed to join an eskimo tribe or that there are great swathes of free land being given away in Alaska that anyone in the global economy can just go and farm and sustain themselves on tax free. Can you provide a cite?
I assume that when I go to the grocery store all those little price tags on the items imply that I can not simply walk out of there with anything I want without giving the proprietors money. I haven’t seen any explicit signs indicating this though. If you know something the rest of us don’t, please clue us in.
LOL. If there is no punishment for not working for money, stop. Come back in a year and tell me how things went.
One more time. I am endorsing a social contract which says the proper way to survive is working for money. People in general would prefer not to have to work for money, and I don’t think a rational person can deny this. Therefore I am harming others by removing their freedom by supporting a system where they must work for money in order to survive and prosper.
You seem to keep asking me to repeat my argument over and over so you can catch me in some sort of typo. Is that it?
You could say that alright.
Lord love a duck!
But food isn’t readily available in every part of the planet and obtained without work. Or perhaps, we are enslaved by the air contract by being forced to breathe to survive? Do you really think air and food are analagous?
YOu have a choice. You can grow or kill your own food, or you can buy it. Your choice. No one is forcing you to do anything. THe truth is, it is easier to work for it and less time consuming. I can buy 2 weeks food for one day of work. And this is opression?
YOu can go buy some land and farm it any time you like. Who ever said anything about it being tax free though? It is starting to sound like you want a situation where you are given things for free.
Yep, starting to sound more like you resent having to work for food. Say, do you think farming and hunting is not work?
which is what I have been saying all along. THe punishment is not doled out by someone. The fact is, you must work to sustain yourself or else have everything given to you gratis.
Well that cinches it. Your argument is that people shouldn’t have to work to survive. Or is it that they have to work for *money[/]? Would it be better if they were paid in sides of beef? If they were in an agrarian society, I imagine they would still be working. Wild game doesn’t roast itself and jump in your mouth.
trust me JM, a typo would do nothing to sully your already pointless, baseless, an unsubstantiated argument (and I didn’t pay for an argument, I paid for a debate.)
This is getting rather silly. I think I am going to go lay down in a field and wait to be fed and clothed. Death to those that pay me for my services!
On most of earth’s surface, oxygen is plentiful, and it is impossible to cause a scarcity of it. But trap a large group of people underground, underwater, or on top of Mt. Everest, and see how valuable your oxygen tank becomes.
So your “solution” to famine victims is “hey, just go somewhere where there is food?” I’ll be generous, and call such a statement naive. Not only may there not be food where you are, there may not be food for the 500 miles surrounding you either.
Explain to me then why people work for money if it is not necessary for them to do so.
So what you are saying is: if I grabbed someone off the street and made them walk at gunpoint across a tightrope, but halfway across they fell to their death, I would not be a murderer because, theoretically, it was possible for them not to fall. Sure I made it difficult by putting them on the tightrope in the first place, but what is wrong with that?
My premise was never that working for money was the only means of survival, although I played along with this idea earlier in the thread in the hopes that people would see the error in it by themselves. As I said earlier:
Well, I had left something out of the equation. I had forgotten there are slothful people who could concievably sit around all day doing nothing except wondering why they are getting thinner. I only forgot about such people because, over the course of not too many weeks, they die. I agree with Mr. Zambezi that such behavior is immoral, although I am surprised I had to point that out explicitly.
You continue
I will go with blind trust in whatever Mr. Webster has to say I would agree with.
I’m am simply explaining my request for ten dollars. I am a slave to money, not a slave to grem0517. 
You and ed made essentially the same argument so I conflagrated them. But here is what you said:
My point was that morality involves doing what is right by other people, not just what it right by your own person (or, as ed basically said, a few others). I presumed you made the same attempt as ed: to at least consider your fellow man at all before trying to make this argument. But if you didn’t even bother doing that I apologize for implying otherwise.
I think that what grem is trying to say, as am I, is that you don’t have to work specifically for money. You can work for trade, for services, for salt, for gold, whatever. Money is simply the most efficient marker for value.
But you and I and everyone wjho does not have all of their needs provided for by others, must work. How you get paid is wholly and totally irrelevant.
Absolutely true.
I still don’t see anyone giving away free farms.
I’m happy for you and your lack of concern about others befitting an immoral person.
That takes money too.
There’s that money problem again.
You are the one who made the claim that you could, without the benefit of money, go somewhere and farm. I await elucidation.
No. These are indeed work. Very good. Your point?
Again, you are absolutely right. How about adressing the OP for a change.
No. My argument is one which I will not state again for the umpteenth time. I suggest you go back and read it again.
We agree on so much. This is truly remarkable. What is your point?
If you would care to address my points, I’m sure we could have a debate.
Slothfulness will get you nothing, I assure you.
**
Ok, let’s admit it. Almost anyone would be hard pressed to survive in this society without using money. If you wanted to buy my car and paid me in gold I’d probably decline the offer. Sure, gold is valuable but I’d have to jump through hoops to make sure the gold was pure and of equal value to the car. A much simplier solution for me would be to accept cash for my vehicle.
**
You might be familiar with share cropping.
**
It seems that a lot of people are having a hard time figuring out why you think money makes you a slave. Either we’re all idiots who can’t understand simple English or you’re simply not making any rational arguements.
**
Your points have been repeatedly addressed but you simply have not backed up any of your assertions. On an aside, what would you replace the system of currency with?
Marc
I’ve just finished reading this thread and I must say I just don’t get it. Granted, it is pretty much standard that people are going to survive in the 1st world by earning money and buying food and shelter with it, but you’re not really a slave to money unless you develop an irrational need to have more and more of it.
The last post asked an important question: (paraphrased) If you don’t like the system we currently use to obtain goods and services, how would you prefer we do things?
And you have it all wrong about this endorsing the system thing. What could be more moral than showing by example that it is important to work for your own survival? By going out and doing something that you may not like in order to support yourself, you are encouraging people to do likewise - which is not a bad thing, despite your argument to the contrary. If everyone went out and figured out some way to survive on their own the rest of us may indeed get back more free time (less taxes = less time needed to work).
Maybe you should try to explain your point one more time.
PeeQueue
Right. Like I said before, substituting out chickens as a form of currency is just a red herring.
Ah, vaguely. Same as feudalism? But you are still basically “taxed” for a portion of your crop which goes to the person who owns the land simply for the fact that he owns it, right? And he sells the excess crop. So, sure, your are a bottom feeder but you are still a part of the economy.
OK, then let me take other tack, although I think it might be flawed and I’ll just be accused of classism and/or socialism.
If you are filthy rich, you do not have to work. Someone who is poor has to work even harder to make up for you not working. Since the rich do not have to work for food, this insistence some have had on this thread that everyone has to work for food is false.
Since some people inherently do not have to work for survival because of how the system works, while others have little choice, the system is flawed. The claim that anyone who would normally be forced to work is wrong for opting out merely because he does not have certain magic numbers in certain computer accounts is also flawed.
Well, {i]I’d* replace the system with one in which I am lord high commander over all I survey. Bring on the concubines!
Oh, but you mean a moral system? Well, keeping in mind this is only an aside, and I believe a moral system can cohabit with an immoral one if the first is not methodically oppressed by the second, I suppose a system in which property is held in common and no one is forced to work against their will would be equitable. Admittedly this would be somewhat chaotic in nature because you can’t guarantee perfectly moral actors.