If by choosing not to be a part of the system you are putting you well being in danger, you are essentially a slave to the system.
See my previous post.
Showing that it is important to work for your own survival without being a slave to the system would be more moral.
We could be making essentially the same argument about the black enslavement of the ante bellum southern US.
The slave is fed, clothed, and housed. Sure, he has to work to harvest grain and cotton, but that is where he gets his food and clothing ultimately. And what could be more moral than that? The fact that he is helping the plantation owner to survive is fine because he acts as protector and supervisor and that is certaintly a good thing.
So why did the slaves want to be free? They must have been immoral people.
If you are going to say freedom is a good thing, the rest of your argument doesn’t hold up.
You can argue of course that freedom is a bad thing and that being free, though you might act morally, is inherently immoral. If anyone wants to develop that argument, I’ll see what I can do to shoot it down.
Well, is it fair for certain slaves to run away? They are only making more work for those who do not run away. All the more reason they should be punished that much more when caught, eh?
Wouldn’t the same argument work in any system that requires someone to work to survive? If you are the hypothetical caveman, aren’t you a slave to the system also by that reckoning? If you do not hunt or gather, you will die, therefore you must do those things. Therefore you are a slave to the system. I don’t agree with that reasoning, but it seems to be yours, in which case being a slave to the system is axiomatic - you will always be a slave and your best bet is to get used to it.
If you do not have to work to survive, then you are not a slave to the system, but someone else is since someone has to be providing you with what you need to live.
Using your definition of “slave to the system”, I don’t see how it’s possible to work for survival. Once you work because you have to (for survival), you (by your definition) are a slave to the system.
No you can’t. Those real slaves had no choice in how they worked for their survival. In addition, that choice was taken away by real force, rather than just the human condition (i.e. needing to eat to live).
Huh? Why? Freedom is never absolute, unless you are a disembodied spirit with omnipotence.
Hmmm, yet another baseless assumption. This assume (as was stated before) that the modern world economy (read, “The Horrible Enslaving Immoral System”) is a zero sum game. Not true! Take this away and your argument fall apart.
My work (or lack of it) does not force anyone else to work. Oops, looks like I might be moral after all (of course, I might not be, but that’s none of your business).
The following is a baseless assumption clarification:
Now prove it. Give a base. Make it not an assumption.
In rough terms, a zero-sum game is where the amount won equals the amount lost. Me betting you five bucks on a football game is a zero-sum game. Non zero-sum games can have more winners than losers and vice versa. Try here: Introductory Sketch of Game Theory
Note: I haven’t gone all the way through this site, but it looked pretty good from the first few pages.
You seem to be implying that work is a zero-sum game. If you don’t work, I must do more. This implies that there is some fixed amount of work that ‘must’ be done. And some fixed number of people to do it. I disagree. Much of the work that is done is aimed at preventing future work. Thus the amount of work to be done is not constant and can’t be considered zero-sum. Better?
Oh good god. Another analogy? Is this really necessary?
Hey, if a black slave in the South escaped to the North, he’d still have to work to survive right? If every slave escaped at the same time, slavery would essentially collapse, and then who would harvest the grain and cotton? Therefore, black slavery was a good thing? Or was this slavery simply a less free system than it could have been?
Well, thank you Uncle Tom for pointing out the errors of my ways. Hail masser! Carry me back to Old Virginny, I wish I was in Dixie!
If you are so keen on being a slave, please move to a nice communist country where you can be shot or imprisoned for not working for money and leave the struggle for freedom to the rest of us, K?
That’s where this old darky’s heart is long to go…
(Dang it, now I got that song in my head)
If immoral people who know they are immoral choose of their own volition to aid those who are acting morally, that is fine. If you do not believe acting morally as such is hard work I suggest you stop working for money and give it a try. Then come back in a year and tell us all how easy it was!
No, once you work for money you are a slave to the system. If your work consists of acting morally as an example to others and explaining what is moral, that is still work. Are you saying everyone has to be a farmer or a carpenter?
They could always choose to run away or simply choose not to do what they were told. Those are choices, are they not?
OK, so there were real laws “on the books” which made it illegal for a slave to escape and these were firmly enforced. Believe it or not, there are a few laws against being poor in this country in various localities, but let’s not quibble with those. In general, I would hope we can agree, isn’t it more difficult to obtain food and shelter if you do not have money – and isn’t that difficulty also enforced by law?
Swing low, sweet chariot… . You’re are a slave to money, then you die. Are going to simply disavow the idea that freedom can be a sliding scale?
You’ll just call it an oversimplification, but I don’t see how that makes a difference
Let’s imagine a closed system of two men and a field. One owns the field. One does not. The owner makes the other work the field in order to have food but does no work himself. The bounty of the field is enough to feed two people. Obviously, person two has to work twice as hard than if person one worked also.
I’ll look into it.
Well, everyone has to eat as numerous people have pointed out in this thread. I don’t know if that must be done, be the alternative is starvation.
Hmm. I mean, person 2 can invent a robot to farm on his behalf. But person 1 still owns the field, and can easily put him to work at soemthing else if person 2 would like to have the robot generated food.
You are the one who keeps saying I’m saying people are forced to work. That is not what I am saying and this analogy helps to clarify what I am saying. Not working for money is risky because others continue to work for money. If one slave escapes he endangers his life and welfare. If every slave escapes, the system collapses.
Either new slaves, or the people that owned the plantations.
That does not follow. If you are asking my opinion, then no.
Yes.
First of all, that is the most obvious case of taking something out of context I’ve ever seen. What I said was “**I don’t agree with that reasoning, but it seems to be yours, in which case **being a slave to the system is axiomatic - you will always be a slave and your best bet is to get used to it.” Bolding added, to emphasize what you intentionally left out.
My best analysis of the rest of that portion of the reply is that it is crap. At least try to keep up the impression of a rational discussion.
Here is a good example of how you assume your conclusion. You have not shown that working for money is immoral. (I know you think you did, but no one on this bbs has agreed with your reasoning yet.)
Again, you have not shown this.
I agree; that is work. So?
Did you read the statement that you were supposed to be responding to? Here it is again: “Using your definition of “slave to the system”, I don’t see how it’s possible to work for survival. Once you work because you have to (for survival), you (by your definition) are a slave to the system.”
I can agree to this is a general sense. I’m not sure about the law part, but I can let it slide.
More crap and a question. Answer to question: that is what I was saying when I told you freedom is never absolute. Of course it is a sliding scale.
Ok, just to make you happy. It’s an oversimplification
Worse, it’s a stunningly obtuse oversimplification that destroys it’s validity. You seem to enjoy properly naming logical fallacies, let me put together the list:
[list=1]
[li]Too narrow[/li][li]Limited Scope[/li][li]Subverted Support[/li][li]Fallacy of Exclusion[/li][li]False Analogy[/li][li]Unrepresentative Sample[/li][li]Hasty Generalization[/li][/list=1]
Yes, but the number of people who need to eat is changing and the amount of work needed to feed them is changing. Hence, non zero-sum.
Or not. What were the terms of the deal? If we’re going to deal in facile analogies, let’s at least make them complete facile analogies. Was the deal that person 2 must produce enough food for person 1 before producing food for himself? Or was the deal that person 2 must give person all of the produce for which person 1 will return an amount sufficient to feed person 2? Vastly different cases wouldn’t you say?
Sorry, I also just noticed that I never addressed:
People work for money because it is more efficient to work for money than to work to directly produce the things that money buys.
You are saying the one guys who owns the plantation is going to do the work of hundreds. Absurd.
:rolleyes: What do you mean that does not follow? Without slaves to harvest the grain and pick the cotton that whole economy would be plunged into ruin. Mass starvation and death. Total anarchy spreading world wide. We must maintain slavery at all cost!!
Wonderful. Finally someone on this thread who argees with me that different systems can have different degrees of freedom.
Sorry. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. I didn’t realize those were the words you were putting in mine.
I think what you are getting at, and I apologize if I missed it the first go-round, is freer systems always have more risk than less free systems. A system without a stock market for example, runs no risk of falling into chaos due to a market crash resulting from the chaos inherent in the system – yet it is said that a system where anyone can buy stock in a company is more free than where this is forbidden.
But I think there is a certain inherent order to chaos that mollifies the dangers the more free a system becomes. I’ll have to think about it.
I was not assuming my conclusion in order to prove my thesis so you shouldn’t have a bone of contention with it.
If you base your morality upon the Golden Rule, and believe that the more free people are the better their lives are, I believe my OP plainly stated my case.
If people wouldn’t keep mis-stating my position, I would not have to keep repeating myself. Exactly what do you believe is a valid axiom upon which to base determining whether something is moral or not? How would you show traditional slavery is immoral?
Well, if you believe that that can be work, then stop trying to undermine my argument by saying doing what I believe to be moral would not be “work” as you define it. Your argument seems to be I guess that not working for money isn’t work because it is immoral, therfore not working for money is immoral, which is just as circular as you accuse my argument as being.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that work can be done that is not working for money and keep equating these terms. I thought maybe you’d try to argue that teaching morallity isn’t work, and then I’d point out that teaching is a valid paid profession like many others. But since we are agreed at least on that point, please don’t insist that working for money is the only possible service to humanity one can perform unless you are willing to say all work beyond the bare minimum (farming and the like) aren’t work either.
Wondeful. And would you say that, morally speaking, a system which provides more freedom to its members is superior to one which does not?
How hard was that to admit? This entire thread isn’t really about money at all. I don’t think you’re forced to work against your will in our current system.
If you would care to present a counter analogy, I’m sure it would be over general, out of scope, and have a fallacy of inclusion of dynamics which are not really there.
No, that is merely a shell game. It doesn’t matter how many shells and marbles you have if there is still one or more shells which have no marble under them.
Well, person one is the owner after all. That’s the deal.
People work for money in order to buy the things that money buys, the money from which go to pay the people who work for money. However, if people did not work for money they could not buy the things which money buys, but produced things would not require money to buy them since there would be no need to pay the people producing them since they do not work for money. What is your reasoning to determine the first system is more efficient than the second?
If we are still talking about the global economy, of course there are people forced to work in our current system. But I wasn’t talking about capitalism – I merely added that “not forced” caveat to distinguish this utopian ideal from the dystopian socialist and communist “common property” systems in which everyone is forced to work for equal rewards. Capitalism can’t be maintained with common property.
This was an aside and had nothing to do with the rest of the thread.
You have a point that it isn’t so much about money as it is about freedom. Money is a tool, we are all agreed. I maintain that the use of the tool is immoral because it harms freedom, but I agree there are worse tools.
I no longer have an interest in leading a moral life in a world where nearly no one else does, either because they have no interest in loving their fellow man too, or they lack a certain degree of intellegence and empathy without which any moral imperitive becomes meaningless (e.g. I enjoy being beaten, therefore the Golden Rule says it is OK to beat others). Gaudere claimed in another thread the required empathy can be taught but I doubted that was the case, and considering the number of “I like to be beaten” type responses I have recieved in this thread from otherwise reasonable and intelligent people I’m starting to wish I’d made her a bet.
Here we sit posting to an Internet message board in our spare time contemplating how money has taken away all the freedoms our cavemen forefathers had. It’s not that I like being beaten, just that you are trying to claim that because you percieve yourself as being beaten it must be so.
Ummm…no. I generally distrust arguing by analogy for many of the reasons illustrated by this thread. Besides, there’s always some gremlin out there who will accuse you of oversimplifing things!
Huh? Sorry, don’t get this at all.
Ahhh, but labor being a scarce commodity in our little fantasy world, Person 3 makes Person 1 a better offer. Feed me, feed yourself and we spilt any extra 50-50. Person 1 invents a robot which produces an amount equal to 3 times that needed to feed Person 3 and stops working. Where is the immorality?
Jesus. All of the problems with your argument wrapped up in one neat little package. Let’s try to break this down, shall we? People work for money in order to buy the things that money buys, the money from which go to pay the people who work for money.
No, the money from which goes to pay the people who work for money in order the buy the things that money buys. Everybody’s part of the system. You’ve established a world where for some reason, people work for money alone. I would suggest that while people may work for more money than they need, at the root is a desire to get things for your money (even if the things is as nebulous as “financial security”).
However, if people did not work for money they could not buy the things which money buys, but produced things would not require money to buy them since there would be no need to pay the people producing them since they do not work for money.
Whew. Got so dizzy from this one that I almost threw up. Somebody make it stop!
But how do the people who produce eat? What if what they produce is not directly edible? This is starting to sound suspiciously like communism. “From each according to his talents, to each according to his needs (and the unstated conclusion, “…AND NOT A DAMN BIT MORE!”)”. Where’s the motivation to improve?
I simply point to the contrast in current economic situations between the United States and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Here endeth the lesson.
This is a shell game. I don’t care if is “zero-sum”, the fact of the matter is the rich man does not work, and as such he is always a “minus sign” in the equation. To make the equation balance – there must be a plus sign somewhere else.
Person 3? What Person 3? And what happens to person 2 who could not swing such a deal? He is cast out to starve? And even if somehow they would make extra, enough to feed person 2, person 2 still needs to provide some sort of value in order to get the food or else that would hardly be fair to persons 3 and 1.
When robots do all our work for us I’d agree we’d have things pretty good. You think that IRL workers who are replaced by robots get life long pay checks? Check again.
But if what you are getting at, with the original analogy, is that Person 2 might refuse to work thus forcing Person 1 to offer a better deal then you basically agree with my argument (though I know you think it is a flawed analogy.)
My company doesn’t pay me in cabbages. Maybe you’ve lost me here:
I think we are in complete agreement. Although I’m getting dizzy too.
We agree.
They go and get food, just like the rest of us.
So what?
No. Under communism, everyone is forced to work, and everyone gets paid equally. Compared to my example, communism is basically a variant of capitalism, and we agree, flawed.
I think we are almost there. Thanks for baring with me.
This is the first time I’ve seen you blatantly say “I don’t agree with it, therefore we must ignore this.” Must I point out the poor debating technique?
Do the damn research! I even gave you the link, all you had to is READ IT! This is a NON zero-sum game. +'s and -'s don’t match, by definition. The equation doesn’t have to balance.
Hey, you invented Person 1 and 2. I’m not allowed to invent Person 3? Damn shell game.
They don’t? You mean I’m the only getting paid in cabbages?
Seriously, under the Great jmullaney System, do you get paid in cabbages or do you have to grow your own? If you don’t have to grow your own, how do differentiate cabbages from money?
From where? From whom? Using what form of compensation?
What the hell is your example? People produce things just for the hell of it? You’ve stated that they don’t get paid and there’s nothing that money can buy, so everyone produces exactly the things they need and nothing else? Or is their some system by which I can produce the things I’m good at (which you can use) and you produce the things you’re good at (which I can use)? Don’t you realize that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW! We just call the counters “money” and make them out of paper, because, let’s face it, cabbages don’t fit into wallets very well.
