|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 11, 2011 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And if the law system didn't exist, the husband would have been able to rob, beat and eventually kill the pharmacist with little to no consequences because most of the other social systems would justify his behaviour at least to an extent (the important part is that there would have been no law-enforced penalty and respectively fear of such).
on the contrary, I would say the current system protects the husband even if he kills. without laws, nothing will prevent the family of the pharmacist from taking revenge.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 11, 2011 07:46 PM |
|
|
|
Without laws a huge number of things change, that's why I said that the "ifs" are not relevant to the actual situation.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 11, 2011 07:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Without laws a huge number of things change.
Yeah, tell that to Georgia. While we're at it, it's a huge question mark if laws actually have any preventive effect or if they're only useable as guidelines for how society should react upon individuals who break the law.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 11, 2011 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, tell that to Georgia.
Yeah, I love that example.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 11, 2011 08:08 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 20:09, 11 Nov 2011.
|
|
The preventive function of the laws is arguably much more important than the penal one. Most people will not commit a major violation like killing someone because they are aware that this will ruin their lives and will affect the people around them to a large extent. Yet again it all depends on what is at stake. In a situation like in the dilemma a regular robbery is completely acceptable for the husband if this will save his wife's life which apparently is much more valuable for him than what he may lose even if he gets caught and the court convicts him. The bottom line is that when the preventive function of the law ceases to be an obstacle, anything may happen and the mere existence of laws is not enough to guarantee that everything will go smoothly if these laws do not reflect the reality correctly.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 11, 2011 10:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you mean, take the guy, grab him and torture him until he spills everything out?
Copying all his research notes and machines over to a magnetlink, and do a full analyze of all the stuff he has should be sufficiant.
Besides, he will fall for the threat of torture, and not torture itself. Such a funny psycological mechanism.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 12, 2011 12:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How would you judge his behaviour, morally?
Immoral, assuming he did not have some good reason for withholding the information. For example, he could have found that his discovery would have some heinous alternative application that would cause greater harm than cancer, in his opinion.
Quote:
Does he have the right to act like he does. SHOULD he act so?
Should society become active in any way?
Yes. It is his research, he can share it or not.
No.
No, other than offering him an incentive to share his findings. By incentive, I mean positive incentives, not threats to kill him or torture him. Just thought I might need to clarify that. 
Quote:
Could society shange the laws and declare it rightful to try and force the man to divulge his secrets?
Sure, if it is a Nazi-istic society. In a free society you simply can't force someone to use his talents for the good of society. A great composer can't be forced to compose new scores for society. A great physicist can't be forced to work on a particular project, a great gymnast can't be forced to entertain, a great actor can't be forced to take on a certain role ect--in a free society. Now, in a society that views the people as being owned by the state, sure, such a thing is possible.
Quote:
SHOULD soeciety do so?
No, society is not the lord and master of the man. No one is "entitled" to the research he conducted.
Quote:
Are there really absolute answers to all of this?
Yes. I gave them to you. Listen and learn, Grasshopper! 
Quote:
Everyone can visit him and apply for treatment. He'll listen to their story, decide whether to help and if so, whether to charge a fee or a service which the applicants can accept (for treatment) or deny (no treatment).
Comments?
That is his right. Again, no one is ENTITLED to his services or to his research.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 12, 2011 12:50 AM |
|
|
Dilemma #24
A burgoise arrives in a starved town, with capital and some resources. There are skilled labourers with a complete education there, but the town is about to die from starvation due the circumstances.
He wants to start a establishment, and then make a large corporation. The stars have also aligned, so in good faith he thinks he has a chance.
Now... because of these circumstances, the members of this town will put up with roughly any price he will name for their wages, so long its wages.
Dilemma: Should the burgoise pay the workers the proper marked price for their work, or should he undercut them because their desperat?
Edit: Let me make myself a bit clearer. He has the capital, and the product will be so succesfull that it will properly cover the workers and his wages. So its not a economic issue either, the question is simply: Is it morally right to undercut the town just because he feels like earning a bit more?
To make it even clearer: Its not a matter of how much profit he earns, but if he should get a extra surplus he won't spend.
Edit2: Nitpick all you want about the choice of the word "Burgoise", it just sounds a lot more elegant than "Capital owner", "Son of some extremely rich guy" OR one of the equal substitutes.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 12, 2011 01:03 AM |
|
|
The problem with that is the entrepreneurs would like to cut a fair deal (after all, if the workers are happy with the pay, then they work hard and you don't have problems with unions and be glad to continue doing services for you and not for some other entrepreneur that may opt to compete with you.), but on the other hand, they have to deliver a product at a lower price than the competition and these workers all seem to be ingrateful, no matter how fair your pay is anyway, so they may opt to have a very different opinion of what a fair deal is.
However, this isn't every day and it is also far from a moral issue, but more of an economical one. Something that I know you and I have a fairly loose understanding of at the very best. The fact, you see things so one-sided signifies you understand economy as well as I do.
I don't think he should just give his money away, though. 
Quote:
burgoise
Either the bourgeoisie or a member of the bourgeoisie. Burgoise would be pronounced buhr-gwah-se.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2011 01:53 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
If everyone follows the laws - why change it?
Do you honestly believe this? There are some laws I follow that I would still like changed. Other people are even more restricted by wrong laws, or are not restricted but should be. Acceptance of a law's supremacy is not acceptance of its optimality.
As for your example with the revenge killer, yes, it was morally wrong for them to do it. Not because there's anything wrong with revenge as such, but allowing people to take the law into their own hands is dangerous.
del_diablo:
"time is a unit of time"? That's not a helpful explanation.
If no one is forced to save me, someone could save me voluntarily. Or maybe no one would.
As for your dilemma, it's incoherent. If they voluntarily agree to work for the wages he offers, then it's the market price. (Also, I can't help but notice that you think a lot of rich people inherited their money. That's just not true, at least in the US.)
Bak:
You can't abstract the problem away by bringing in the state. Yes, instead of individuals, the state would keep people alive - but the state is funded by forcibly seized taxpayer dollars. There's not much difference between forcing someone to help directly and forcing them to give money to something that helps directly.
As for private health care vs. private military, I've already told you what the difference is numerous times. Defense is a public good, health care mostly isn't. If I pay for my defense I'm also paying for my neighbor's defense, but if I pay for my health care I'm not paying for my neighbor's health care (unless I'm being treated for something contagious).
Zeno:
There's a difference between my hypothetical and yours. We're trying to find out whether the pharmacist harmed the woman or not, right? You're saying he harms her by withholding the medicine, and I'm saying he doesn't. Thus, it makes sense to compare it to a situation in which there is no pharmacist and no medicine. If he was harming her in the initial scenario, and doesn't exist in the second scenario, then she should be better off. We know that she isn't better off, and therefore we can conclude that he wasn't harming her.
Quote:
Sorry, what?
Exactly what I said. There is no such thing as society beyond a synonym for "what is commonly done". Society is not an entity that does anything. All action is done by individual entities.
Quote:
The pharmacist and his parents have spent X on his life as a whole, including the means to make him what he is, i.e. a pharmacist. Then he invents the drug and decides to sell it. So in order to owe nothing to the society, the pharmacist will have to sell the drug for a price that will never allow him to get more than X (not necessarily in one transaction of course).
This literally doesn't make any sense. How much his parents have spent on him and how much he can charge for the drug have completely no connection.
Let me explain it to you simply. The sources of everything he has can be broken down into two categories:
1. Things that were given to him for free without any expectation of repayment. This includes the care and stuff he got from his parents. He doesn't owe them anything because it was given for free, not in exchange for something.
2. Things he paid for already. This includes his police and military protection, food, etc. He doesn't owe anything there because he already paid for it in exchange for receiving it.
The same breakdown applies to his parents, and their parents, and so on. No one has to be raised in a cave. "Society" hasn't given him anything because it doesn't exist. His parents (and maybe some others) gave him something for free, and the rest he bought voluntarily (or is forced to buy, as in the case of government services).
Quote:
So the husband is in the same situation as the rest of the society is and just happens to be the individual that the pharmacist currently deals with.
But according to you, the pharmacist owes something to society, not the husband. The husband hasn't paid for anything of the pharmacist's, so he doesn't owe him anything.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2011 09:38 AM |
|
|
This is pretty interesting.
As far as I'm concerned, from his answers Elodin makes it clear that
a)Moral and the law are two different things (as in: the law or human rights allow things that may be immoral to do); this is in keeping with his absolute view on morals: GOD is the authority here, and the law is not necessarily in keeping with HIS laws.
b) If someone acts immorally, this doesn't change the laws for him or her - they still apply. Specifically, society has no right to change the laws for the individual to punish immoral behaviour (that has been backed by the law).
This is consistent - at least in my opinion -, but leaves one question: What if society acts immoral itself against the immoralty - within the law? In other words: If the individual acts immoral within the law, and if the immoralty is relevant for society, how should society react?
a) Accept things
b) Change the law to stop this possibility and be glad that this won't at least happen again
c) Act immoral itself within the law - for example, society might call on everyone, not to interact with the man: isolate him completely, not sell him stuff and so on (and sking the question whether this was in fact immoral behaviour or not).
And is there a definite answer to this?
Mvass on the other hand declares that following the law is THE objective moral for everyone which rules over all the others. This is desperately looking for a source of objective and absolute rules. However, I don't see one.
Considering that Mvass is utilitarian, MORAL has actually no place in his concepts. There is no HIGHER wrong or right - instead there is the self interest of the individual, and all rules and the law are there for the one and only purpose to further this to the best of effect.
This, however, is possible only, if everyone is keeping to the law - even if it is, as in Corribus's dilemma, NOT in the best interest of a person. Because, if everyone does what they please without any limitation, chaos is the result, and chaos is not making best use of the available forces.
That, however, leaves the question, WHY the self interest in keeping and marketing one's property (of the druggist) should have precedence over the self interest of the wife to keep her life and the self interest of Heinz to keep his wife. In other words, is the actual law "right", and if so, why? Isn't this a case comparable with petty larcency of food?
Addition: More to the point, if self interest and its continued prospering the actual reason behind it, isn't it so that the law stops to be relevant once it is actually threatening the foundation of a specific one? Would self interest not DEMAND to break the law, if the alternative was losing the foundation - life itself?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 12, 2011 12:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Exactly what I said. There is no such thing as society beyond a synonym for "what is commonly done". Society is not an entity that does anything. All action is done by individual entities.
That is among the greatest nonsenses I have read recently (and generally). There is really no point to discuss this further.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2011 06:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because, if everyone does what they please without any limitation, chaos is the result, and chaos is not making best use of the available forces.
and is chaos bad? for example, I could say that chaos is life and order is death. look at totalitarianism, it is order. is it good? well, it could, like in "brave new world", from a certain point of view I mean.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 01:06 AM |
|
|
JJ:
If you define "moral" as something that is independent of human self-interest and well-being, then, as you say, it is not something with which I am concerned, but that's not a good definition because it doesn't capture how that word is actually used. Also, the law is not morality, the law is the law - a set of government-enforced rules that everyone is meant to follow. That does not mean that it is necessarily good or bad.
To answer your first question, it is because theft is morally forbidden, no matter what the motivation. It's not a question of what the law says - even if it was legally allowed, it would still be morally wrong. Allowing people to steal has negative consequences, as it undermines the fundamental purpose of the social contract - non-aggression.
As for your second question, you're right. If it's a matter of life and death, the man has no reason not to break the law. But even in that case, the rest of the world does not want to be stolen from, and thus the law should try to prevent it and/or punish him.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 10:52 AM |
|
|
You haven't answered the question, why the property right of the druggist should have precedence over the right to try and survive. Stealing food in order to avoid starving isn't so different from stealing a medicine in order to survive.
There is the general question lurking , what principles are guiding a soeciety when making their laws: why is a law this way and not that?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 02:25 PM |
|
|
My history teacher said:
When you look upon old civilisations, and read their laws, you can assume that if they had a problem they would need to make a law for it.
Times was different back then, mainly because there could not exist any effective archive system either.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 04:37 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:38, 13 Nov 2011.
|
Quote:
You haven't answered the question, why the property right of the druggist should have precedence over the right to try and survive. Stealing food in order to avoid starving isn't so different from stealing a medicine in order to survive.
There is the general question lurking , what principles are guiding a soeciety when making their laws: why is a law this way and not that?
I am entitled to the fruit of my labor. You are not entitled to the fruit of my labor. That is the principle behind laws in free and fair societies.
The druggist is entitled to the fruit of his labor. The man who has a dying wife is not entitled to the fruit of the druggist's labor. The druggist can chose to sell the fruit of his labor to the man. The druggist can chose to be charitable and give the fruit of his labors to the man who has the wife in need.
Instead of becoming a thief or a murderer the man with the needful wife can try to strike a deal with the druggist. He could say, look, here is a $1000 down-payment. I'll pay you you $X every month over the next year, ensuring you receive not only the full price for your drug but a nice interest rate as well. Here is the contract." Or he could mount a charitable fundraiser for his wife, something the local media is apt to give him free coverage for.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 05:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am entitled to the fruit of my labor. You are not entitled to the fruit of my labor. That is the principle behind laws in free and fair societies.
Then WHY is the company hirering you entitled to stealing the fruits of labour?
Its not a free marked until the pyramid scheme is gone.
____________
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 07:05 PM |
|
|
The company is hiring you, therefore you are under the company. You are not separate entity (as you would be from society), rather you are part of an organisation. As part of an organisation, you are one of hundreds of thousands of individuals that are provided for. To provide for the needs of the company that supports you and markets your goods (thus earning you profit and prestige), you must be willing to make certain sacrifices. For instance, you must allow the company to produce your product, so you must give your product designs to them. You must also give them part of the profit, since they are purchasing the materials for and producing your product. The company will also, in return for your time and effort, make sure that yours is the name that goes with the product's patent and will provide things like a salary and health care as well as a community of peers with which to interact (though this is just a side effect). Not giving them the fruits of your labor that you said they would be entitled to is breaking this contract, and they have the right to kick you out with no other reason, and it's a break-down of the market system, since you have no way to produce enough of your product to make it sell able. The fruits of your labor go to waste, and there really wasn't a point to said waste.
Though in this case the company would probably just try to give you more so that they can possess what you have created. You must realize that though they take they are required to fairly compensate you for what they have taken. You did realize that, right Del?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 07:21 PM |
|
|
lol
and what kind of sacrifices do most companies do for their employees?
seriously, giving money is not hard. money is nothing, unlike the time (amongst other things) that employees have to sacrifice.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
