Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2016, 03:39 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 03:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:13 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But it is extremely important that everyone drives on the same side -- because, you know, head-on collisions are bad and harmful and stuff like that.
Yeah, but not bad in a moral sense. Collisions aren't morally bad. They are accidents and bad in a sense that it's not an outcome that you want. People don't generally choose to have collisions, "bad" people aren't generally choosing to collide. So it is bad, but in a different context from "morally bad".

The law here is creating a rule in order to make roads safe, not safe from immorality, not safe from immoral drivers and immoral choices. It is entirely a law based on a practical thing such as safety of people travelling on roads. Somewhat like the law about wearing a safety belt or a helmet. There is nothing immoral about not wearing a safety belt, nothing immoral about not wearing a helmet. (well of course you are free to believe that wearing a safety belt is moral, but I don't think many people would classify it as a matter of morality).

What about my example of cheating on your spouse? Would you consider that immoral? Do you think there ought to be a law against it?

The accidents themselves are not immoral, but a law (or the absence of a law) that allows them to happen when they could have been prevented is definitely immoral.

An open marriage where both spouses agree on dating others is not immoral, but I would say that "cheating" is, because it causes emotional harm to the "cheatee", and the two made a contract to support each other when they got married. The cheating violates that contract. As far as I know, there is no criminal law against adultery, and I'm not sure there should be, but there are laws that make adultery grounds for divorce, and the victim of the adultery gets the better side of the divorce settlement -- because the law recognizes that harm has been done to that victim.

Note that I am not claiming any absolute morality (certainly not one handed down by a non-existent God) -- your morals may differ from mine, and different societies may have different morals. A society collectively determines its morality (and a society's morals can change -- many people in the US once though there was nothing wrong with enslaving other people), but it's silly to claim that it doesn't have one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 03:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The accidents themselves are not immoral, but a law (or the absence of a law) that allows them to happen when they could have been prevented is definitely immoral.
OK, I think it would be possible to narrow down your definition of morality or understanding of it such that it may become indistinguishable from some other more tangible thing, such as safety perhaps.

I would prefer to use the word safety, because it means much more and is less vague. With morality, there are so many definitions, it really becomes a language of obscurity where people will talk past each other or argue infinitum as their is no way to discover or resolve disputes.

So I think it is valid for you to include law for driving on a particular side of the road into your understanding of morality (well done). I personally wouldn't include it, but I accept that we have different understandings of what morality is.

(11-10-2016 03:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  An open marriage where both spouses agree on dating others is not immoral, but I would say that "cheating" is, because it causes emotional harm to the "cheatee", and the two made a contract to support each other when they got married. The cheating violates that contract.
Sure, a marriage constitutes a contract, if a contract is breached then there are valid grounds for getting out of a contract. This is business rather than morality in my book.

(11-10-2016 03:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  As far as I know, there is no criminal law against adultery, and I'm not sure there should be
Then you don't agree that law should be based on morality. I'm inferring that your position is that we shouldn't make all "immoral" things illegal. This would lead me to ask, "If not morality, then what else is it that we use to determine if something is to be illegal or not?". Could our law possibly be based on something else, other than to be assumed to be based on morality?

(11-10-2016 03:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  but there are laws that make adultery grounds for divorce, and the victim of the adultery gets the better side of the divorce settlement -- because the law recognizes that harm has been done to that victim.
Perhaps that is the way it is in your country. In NZ it is not the court's place to determine who is at fault, not their place to punish who is at fault. It is instead the court's place only to determine an equitable seperation based on details of marriage contract (pre-nupts etc) as well as based on law.

I do find it rather antagonising to invoke into law a clause where the courts are to determine who is at fault in a marriage breakup and to provide financial motivation to point the finger. I would say divorce is a difficult process and I don't see the need to make it any worse than it already is.



(11-10-2016 03:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  and different societies may have different morals. A society collectively determines its morality (and a society's morals can change -- many people in the US once though there was nothing wrong with enslaving other people), but it's silly to claim that it doesn't have one.
I don't agree that societies have morals. Morals are a belief system. Individuals have moral beliefs, societies are merely a grouping of "Not necessarily aligned" individuals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 04:42 PM
RE: Do or Die
I think morality is a very complicated subject, and we could go on for days, and this thread is not the proper place for that. This is the second thread today that I have helped to derail, and as in the other one, I'm going to bow out.

Perhaps others will bring it back on topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 04:59 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 04:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think morality is a very complicated subject, and we could go on for days, and this thread is not the proper place for that. This is the second thread today that I have helped to derail, and as in the other one, I'm going to bow out.

Perhaps others will bring it back on topic.
Oh, not just you, everyone has derailed this thread.

Anyway, thanks for discussing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 04:37 AM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 11:51 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 07:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Clearly, it is not. Like I already said, you appear to be upset that we're getting grey into your black and white.
I'm not upset at all, I'm just wondering how to keep this thread on track. I don't know why you go off on a tangent about morality and that all businesses are evil. I think this is absurd.

No, what is absurd is your seeming inability to grasp the concept that amoral constructs (like businesses and corporations) have motivations that can and do drive them to cause needless harm in the name of profit. Since they cannot be trusted to act morally on their own, and their motivations can very easily cause their actions to turn evil, that is a huge problem that needs to be accounted for. It is an integral part of the discussion. We're not going 'off track' by including it, rather you are purposely attempting to kneecap the discussion by fighting its inclusion at every turn.



(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 07:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  By increasing demand. If you bleed the consumer base dry by trying to appease the corporation's desire for cheaper labor, then you're necessarily shrinking your own market by limiting the purchasing power of the consumers (because, you know, their wages are stagnant while the cost of living rises).

This has been brought up more than once. Your question is a weak deflection
I have heard you talk about this. I have no idea how you can reason that increasing costs of a business will result in more profit for that business. It doesn't make any economic sense.

Because you're an idiot. Facepalm

Businesses don't hire people because they can. They hire the people that they need to get the work at hand done. So how do you stimulate a business to hire more people? Well, they need to have more work to do. How do you do that? Well, by increasing demand for their products and services. What creates demand for those products and services? Consumers with enough extra income to purchase them.

It's a positive feedback loop. If more people in the economy have more money to spend on goods and services, that increases demand within the economy. The increased demand drives the expansion of businesses, and that is what causes them to hire more people. It requires enough foresight into the long game to realize that everyone in a consumer driven economy is better off with a strong consumer base.


(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You appeal to emotional statements "bleed the consumer base dry", "greedy, evil businesses", I don't think you are presenting a considered or logical argument.

Emotions do not exclude reason. Facepalm


(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 07:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, once again, you're insisting we all ignore the ethical components of decisions rife with ethical implications.
If you want to discuss the ethical aspects of business then I think that would be for a different thread, why are you trying so hard to rope me into an ethical discussion? I don't even believe in morality or ethics so I'm hardly the right person to discuss the ethics of business with.

Well, then you seem to be terribly under qualified to talk about the subject; much like someone blind to color having a discussion about interior design or paint. Color theory is an integral part of any aesthetic design and trying to exclude it from the discussion, because you either don't believe in color or cannot see it, does nothing but artificially handicap the discussion.


(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 07:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why are you so dead set on sidestepping the topic?
Create another thread about the ethics of business, and discuss that aspect with people who find that topic interesting or relevant.

See above. Why should we all handicap ourselves to fit your standard?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
12-10-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 11:51 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not upset at all, I'm just wondering how to keep this thread on track. I don't know why you go off on a tangent about morality and that all businesses are evil. I think this is absurd.

No, what is absurd is your seeming inability to grasp the concept that amoral constructs (like businesses and corporations) have motivations that can and do drive them to cause needless harm in the name of profit.
I'm not particularly interested in your ideas about "needless harm in the name of profit.
What I am interested in is how taking money from businesses (driving up costs) can result in more jobs rather than less.


(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Since they cannot be trusted to act morally on their own,
Why on earth would you trust a business to act morally? Whose moral beliefs are you trusting them to act in accordance with? Yours? LOL.

They are there to make a profit. You seem to have a strange expectation of them if you think it is valid criticism to point out that you can't trust them to act according to your own moral beliefs.

In reality, they are there to make a profit, not there to make YOU happy.


(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  and their motivations can very easily cause their actions to turn evil, that is a huge problem that needs to be accounted for.
There really is no such thing as evil, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Perhaps you could go out and hire yourself some exorcists or something.

(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It is an integral part of the discussion. We're not going 'off track' by including it, rather you are purposely attempting to kneecap the discussion by fighting its inclusion at every turn.
How does your ideas of evil businesses impact job creation?
How is it relevant to the number of available jobs?

(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have heard you talk about this. I have no idea how you can reason that increasing costs of a business will result in more profit for that business. It doesn't make any economic sense.
Businesses don't hire people because they can. They hire the people that they need to get the work at hand done.
I can agree with that. They hire people because the business case stacks up. Because if revenue is a sufficient level above costs and there are no cheaper (more cost effective alternatives) and if this is a priority (i.e. core to the business) then it makes sense to hire people.
If the cost of wages goes up however, then they may cut back on hiring staff, they might scale down their business, or they might look to offshore certain functions or automate it e.g. Customer Care and call centres or IT development, or HR functions or accounting and finance functions, or perhaps they might also look to shift manufacturing offshore.

(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So how do you stimulate a business to hire more people? Well, they need to have more work to do. How do you do that? Well, by increasing demand for their products and services. What creates demand for those products and services? Consumers with enough extra income to purchase them.
Advertising, Brand preference, following or leading market trends etc will increase demand, also lowing the price (by lowering costs) will also increase demand.

It makes no sense to say, well if they give money away to the poor then they will get that back + more in increased sales. If it worked that way, they would already be doing it. Just like they put money into advertising and building brand preference and into advancing their products based on market trends.

If increasing wages of their staff meant that they would make more profit, they would do it, you wouldn't need to legislate a minimum wage.

(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's a positive feedback loop.
Well, it seems that business owners don't agree with you there.
Unless of course, they are evil and hence they are colluding to make wages really low despite the "fact" that this lowers their own profits. Evil people, obviously go out of their way to "harm" people, especially the poor, even if it means less profit and wealth for themselves. They do it for kicks so that they can verbalise their evil laugh which they have put a lot of time in perfecting.
Mwah ha harrrrr!

(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If more people in the economy have more money to spend on goods and services, that increases demand within the economy.
Would be great if everyone had money that they can spend on goods and services, but where does the money come from? There isn't any magical cash cow. You need to create value, businesses do this.

(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The increased demand drives the expansion of businesses, and that is what causes them to hire more people. It requires enough foresight into the long game to realize that everyone in a consumer driven economy is better off with a strong consumer base.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. This issue is where does the money come from?
Take it from the rich, take it from the businesses isn't the answer. You need to create value to produce money. Take and give it away is a fool's dream.

(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You appeal to emotional statements "bleed the consumer base dry", "greedy, evil businesses", I don't think you are presenting a considered or logical argument.

Emotions do not exclude reason. Facepalm
That's true, but they also obscure the point that you are trying to make. Seems your motivations are other than calculated logic, so my skeptical self becomes more active.

(12-10-2016 04:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  If you want to discuss the ethical aspects of business then I think that would be for a different thread, why are you trying so hard to rope me into an ethical discussion? I don't even believe in morality or ethics so I'm hardly the right person to discuss the ethics of business with.

Well, then you seem to be terribly under qualified to talk about the subject; much like someone blind to color having a discussion about interior design or paint.
Yes, much like trying to discuss the colour of god's eyes with an atheist or trying to discuss with many people the size and colour of fairy wings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 02:14 PM
RE: Do or Die
Stevil do you have a one track mind? More jobs is not the goal. It might be a side effect. It might be a sub-goal on the path towards achieving a better life for all. It certainly is not the end-goal.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-10-2016, 02:22 PM
RE: Do or Die
I think that, in a sense, Stevil's position is consistent and realistic. Businesses exist for the purpose of making a profit, and in general, they will do whatever they can to maximize their profit. Do we expect them to be moral? No -- at least I don't. That would be unrealistic.

However, it's also unrealistic to allow the businesses free rein to do whatever they want, and damn the cost to society. Some of their profit-making exercises will be harmful to the rest of us, and we do expect government to restrain the businesses as needed to minimize the damage. Libertarians may not agree, but I think that is one of the legitimate functions of government. We also expect the businesses to pay their fair share of taxes, just like anyone else who profits financially.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
12-10-2016, 02:29 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 02:22 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think that, in a sense, Stevil's position is consistent and realistic.

Consistent yes. Realistic? Hardly. Since when has unrestrained profit been a good thing? What does it mean to say that if a human or group of humans goes and fucks up a place and takes e.g. all the natural resources that's bad but if you incorporate this magical thing called a company and make those same humans directors suddenly it's all fair play?

Also Stevil just like I pay taxes as my fee to society for the right to live in it, businesses can pay tax as their fee to operate. They get something out so they should damn well put something in too. It's not "taking money from business", it's *cost of doing business*.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
12-10-2016, 02:35 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 02:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 02:22 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think that, in a sense, Stevil's position is consistent and realistic.
Consistent yes. Realistic? Hardly. Since when has unrestrained profit been a good thing?

To be fair, I don't think he's advocating for unrestrained profit. There has been some strawmanning on both sides here, and people are talking past each other to some degree. What I think is realistic about Stevil's position is that we can't expect businesses to police themselves. He seems to think that we are suggesting that they should do that, but I don't think anyone really is. We're just saying that they need to be restrained by government, and I'm not sure he disagrees with that. Both sides are spending a lot of time and energy arguing against claims that the other side isn't really making.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: