|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted November 13, 2011 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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.
Sounds sooo idealistic. I don't know if this has something to do with the reality where you live but where I am there are companies which make hundreds of percents profit just because they are underpaying their employees. Of course there is this cute theory of certain so called economists which says that you are never underpayed because you ultimately agree freely to work for as much as you are offered... No offense but I really think that some of you people live in an imaginary world.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 07:49 PM |
|
|
|
you fully agreed or had no better choice?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 07:57 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 19:57, 13 Nov 2011.
|
|
Nah. You see, it's like that - the said theory does not take into account whether you are living in a fully developed country like Germany, GB, USA, Japan or in some semi-civilized or badly underdeveloped area in the "third world", nor it cares how urgently you need a job. Nobody (I guess this means no conscious physical being) is forcing you to work for your current salary (i.e. you are free to leave whenever you want, in accordance with your contract obligations of course) so in essence the company can't underpay you, blackmail you, exploit you and so on. See how neat it is?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 10:42 PM |
|
|
JJ:
I did answer the question - because allowing theft has real negative consequences. Moral law punishes those who harm. Thus, the pharmacist, who does not harm anybody, is protected, while the thief, who harms the pharmacist is supposed to be punished.
Zeno:
The only meaningful way in which a company can underpay an employee is if it pays them less than the wage for which the worker agreed to work. Otherwise, if the worker and employer agree to a wage, then they both benefit. If the worker agrees, then it is nonsensical to say that he is being harmed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 10:48 PM |
|
|
|
that might be true if there were as many people looking for a job as people looking for employees.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 11:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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...
I think, you should first forget the "instead of". The dilemma isn't meant to allow a "alternartively the guy can turn to charity" or anything else.
Elodin, I don't see your point, comparing it with your stance in abortion. We have established that it is morally wrong of the druggist to withhold the drug and let the wife die, even though the husband offers a fair compensation. If you argue, that the husband cannot be allowed a claim on "the fruit of the labor", even if that will cost a life - can't then a pregnant woman claim the same? That fetus has no claim on me feeding it - I can starvé it to death?
Mvass:
Quote:
JJ:
I did answer the question - because allowing theft has real negative consequences. Moral law punishes those who harm. Thus, the pharmacist, who does not harm anybody, is protected, while the thief, who harms the pharmacist is supposed to be punished.
Allowing people to die, although there are alternatives that harm no one, has real negative consequences as well.
Moreover it is not even theft. It's not theft the same way as self-defence isn't murdering.
Thus the question remains.
You could make the same point there: self-defence has real negative consequences
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 11:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sounds sooo idealistic.
So you are saying that this doesn't exist? At all? Ever? Anywhere?... Really? I would hate to live in your society, and I would hate to live on your world. Mine may not be perfect... but at least I can expect to be compensated for my time and effort.
Quote:
I don't know if this has something to do with the reality where you live but where I am there are companies which make hundreds of percents profit just because they are underpaying their employees. Of course there is this cute theory of certain so called economists which says that you are never underpayed because you ultimately agree freely to work for as much as you are offered...
If you agree to a company's price and you have no complaints, then you are not underpaid. Tell me how you would be underpaid if you agree with the salary they were giving to you, as the matter of being paid satisfactorily/ underpaid is completely a matter of the person's perspective?
In a developed country (Not developing, eg; China/ N. Korea), you will have the choice to leave a company that you feel undervalues you. If you are right and your product is far more valuable than your original company considered, then you have the option of giving your product to this new company. Correct, or am I just being an idealistic moron again? (Really, am I? Is the world/ human race that bad these days?)
Quote:
No offense but I really think that some of you people live in an imaginary world.
And I absolutely hat it when people do this. "Hey, you're an idiot. *Thinks to self 'I might get in trouble for that'* ... No offence." It shows a lack of development of a sense of responsibility. If you are going to insult me, I really wish you would just come out and do it! I'm a big boy, I can take your worst.
Just don't hide behind the "No offence" or "Just sayin'" lines! Thank you!*
*And yes, I just told you that you can insult me. Don't worry about it Cor, the COC would only apply if the person (me) was to actually feel insulted and complained to you.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 13, 2011 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
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...
I think, you should first forget the "instead of". The dilemma isn't meant to allow a "alternartively the guy can turn to charity" or anything else.
Elodin, I don't see your point, comparing it with your stance in abortion. We have established that it is morally wrong of the druggist to withhold the drug and let the wife die, even though the husband offers a fair compensation. If you argue, that the husband cannot be allowed a claim on "the fruit of the labor", even if that will cost a life - can't then a pregnant woman claim the same? That fetus has no claim on me feeding it - I can starvé it to death?
You are comparing apples and oranges. In the case of an abortion a woman chooses to kill her unborn baby for no good reason (unless somehow the baby posed a risk to the life of the mother.) The baby is exactly where he is supposed to be in that stage of the human life cycle and the mother chooses to snuff his life out. A child IS ENTITLED to being nurtured by his parents until he becomes an adult.
You on the other hand are not entitled to be nurtured by me. You are not my dependent. If I am a billionaire and you get cancer and can't afford the treatment you are not entitled to have me foot the bill for your cancer treatment. I may do so out of a charitable heart but you are not entitled to such treatment by me.
The druggist can chose to treat no one, can chose to treat everyone, can chose to charge money, can chose to require a service or whatever. He is under no obligation to treat anyone.
Not every immoral act should be punished by society. Becoming a drunk is immoral but should not be punished by society. Being a glutton is immoral but should not be punished by society. Being selfish is immoral but should not be punished by society. Speaking unkindly to your wife is immoral but should not be punished by society. Ect.
The druggist should not be punished by society for not giving away his product or for not performing services he is capable of performing for someone in need of them.
Let's say the druggist is a savant and the only one capable of manufacturing the drug because a certain amount of "artistry" was involved in mixing the ingredients at just the right moment in just the right way, requiring "intuition" that a computer is simply not capable of. The druggist has decided to retire and spend the rest of his life making model airplanes with his grandchildren rather than to make his cancer curing drug.
Would you be in favor of enslaving the druggist to make the drug? Please explain your answer.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 12:00 AM |
|
|
Gnomes is correct.
JJ:
You are taking something that is not yours without the owner's permission, and can reasonably expect them to object if they knew. Therefore it's theft. Self-defense is you protecting yourself against someone who is trying to harm you, so there's no comparison. Justified self-defense does not have negative consequences, because the person against whom you are defending yourself is trying to harm you and has therefore given up the right to not be harmed.
Elodin:
Quote:
A child IS ENTITLED to being nurtured by his parents until he becomes an adult.
Simple question: why?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 12:05 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:10, 14 Nov 2011.
|
I read that you are 17, gnomes. I've heard some idealistic speeches at school too.
elodin and mvass are completely forgetting the emotional side of the dilemma.
since Elodin used the word "choice" about abortion, I can say that in Heinz's case, it is most likely not a real choice. emotionnaly speaking, he just has to do it. you can try to use reason as much as you can... in such a case, your emotions will choose for you.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 12:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I read that you are 17, gnomes. I've heard some idealistic speeches at school too.
So when you are no longer 17 or in school you don't get paid/ loose all free will?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 07:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So you are saying that this doesn't exist? At all? Ever? Anywhere?... Really? I would hate to live in your society, and I would hate to live on your world. Mine may not be perfect... but at least I can expect to be compensated for my time and effort.
You can expect whatever you want, it is a totally different matter what you will receive. It may exist somewhere to an extent but it's a total fiction in general. You employer will always pay you for less work than you actually do, otherwise he has no means to profit from the whole thing, except if he/she's a market speculator. And this is completely normal because otherwise the economy will simply stagnate forever. The problem appears when he/she deliberately takes advantage of the competition between the workers on the given labor market to squeeze twice, thrice and so on more work from his/her workers for the same money or simply gives the minimal possible wages no matter the work.
Quote:
If you agree to a company's price and you have no complaints, then you are not underpaid. Tell me how you would be underpaid if you agree with the salary they were giving to you, as the matter of being paid satisfactorily/ underpaid is completely a matter of the person's perspective?
What person's perspective? You have a salary which equals X. You have monthly expenses for the very basic things in life like food and shelter which equal Y. It turns out that X is equal or even less than Y. Yet the employer and pretty much every other employer in the given economic sector won't pay more because they are thousands like you which don't have even X and will take your place if given the chance. You are working your ass out to barely sustain yourself and your family, your workload is getting increased on a monthly basis or even more often i.e. you invest more and more efforts and get the same remuneration but you are not underpaid? Seriously, sir, you should not believe in every ridiculous theory that the paid capitalistic apologists throw at you. Give it some thought at least.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 08:23 AM |
|
|
Mvass:
Quote:
JJ:
You are taking something that is not yours without the owner's permission, and can reasonably expect them to object if they knew. Therefore it's theft. Self-defense is you protecting yourself against someone who is trying to harm you, so there's no comparison. Justified self-defense does not have negative consequences, because the person against whom you are defending yourself is trying to harm you and has therefore given up the right to not be harmed.
You tell me, if I'm dying from thirst, and you sell water, specifically to avoid people dying from it, if I offer you everything I have for the water, which is five times of what it's worth, but you ask double as much, and I then try to take the water so I won't die you can shoot me, since I attack and try to steal hat is yours.
And you think that is morally right?
Think about this: if the druggist wasn't a DRUGGIST, but a DOCTOR, and what was required wasn't a MEDICINE but the SERVICE of the doctor, and everything else was the same (hubbie offering fair compensation for the service, doctor requiring double the fee or no treatment), would you see this differently? There is a reason why dotors have this oath, mind you.
So why is marketing a cure that is supposed to keep people from dying any DIFFERENT?
@ Elodin
And that's exactly the question to you as well, Elodin. If the cure is used to heal the wife, it's exactly where it belongs. It's what it is supposed to do. It was developed specifically for that reason, not for shining shoes or cleaning the bathroom. Why would it be ok to let a human being die just because the druggist is greedy, when you are opposing an abortion after a rape with the argument "the woman has no good reason to kill the fetus" (she doesn't want to sacrifice her lifestyle)?
That's not convincing.
Note that my point is, that it is impossible to "rate" the morality of behaviour in extreme situations - I wouldn't want to judge the actions. Yes, generally stealing is bad and forbidden, as is killing other human beings. Or enslaving them, forcing them to do things.
But there are quite obviously exceptions, exceptions that are found justifiable. If you are penniless and steal an apple from someone else's tree so that you don't starve - would it be right to be punished for theft? If you help someone who's assaulted and beaten and kill the perp in the process - would it be right to be accused of murder in any degree?
Our system of law makes an investigation a matter of course, and in all cases things can go to court. Everything may happen, no matter the actual law, because the question is always whether the law to be applied is the right one and how the actions of someone are interpreted.
In the actual case, BOTH possible results (1) hubbie steals drug saves wife, is accused of theft; 2) hubbie does not steal drug, wife dies, druggist is accused of wilful negligent killing) might lead to someone being accused of a crime and punished or not. In my opinion there is no absolute yardstick to measure this with that would allow to judge right or wrong.
In reality our judgement depends on details. If there was an investigation, for example, I would say that the question, whether there has been any contact between the druggist and either hubbie or his wife earlier. If there WAS, you might assume an ulterior motive for the druggist not to sell the drug: revenge, for example. Which would completely turn things around.
So in reality not many things are really clear-cut. Instead things are extremely complicated, and when it's a matter of life and death things are very much so.
Mostly, the result will play a role. In the actual case, if hubbie steals the thing and saves the life of his wife, basically everyone will be satisfied with the result. Basically everyone will tell druggist, you should have either taken the offered money or guarded your property better than you did, and if it went to court, no one would be willing to punish the thief severely.
If on the other hand hubbie would have killed druggist in order to get the stuff, after having him tortured to force him to help, there would be a somewhat different view.
You might say that is a general principle: if a person breaks a law in good intention, people will tend to overlook this or not, depending on a comparison of the damage and the good done.
So while the laws are strict, the actual question is always, whether a cited law actually is applicable or not and whether there may be mitigating circumstances.
The actual question is, however, whether hubbie is MORALLY right or wrong, and morally means obviously something else than the letter of the law (except for Mvass, for whom, for want of a better definition, "moral" IS keeping to the letter of the law).
My opinion is, that we cannot decide that in any general, objective sense.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 08:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I read that you are 17, gnomes. I've heard some idealistic speeches at school too.
So when you are no longer 17 or in school you don't get paid/ loose all free will?
no, but teachers don't necessarily know what they are talking about. maybe they just want to reassure themselves that they don't do their work for nothing.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 08:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I read that you are 17, gnomes. I've heard some idealistic speeches at school too.
So when you are no longer 17 or in school you don't get paid/ loose all free will?
Why would they pay you for what your work is worth? They don't really want to hire more people, but if they do: They have more than a few hundred applications per job.
So why would they agree to pay you the real value of your work?
So they don't hire you, who will? All the competition is also paying exactly the same low amount because that is the status.
You don't lose your free will, but nobody is giving you a shot at a job that you will actually be paid properly for. So you have the choice of either taking the job, and work yourself to death OR to keep on going on the dole..... both options suck.
Zenofax did a good job at nailing the issue too.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 01:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So why would they agree to pay you the real value of your work?
What is the real value of your work, diablo? Is there a huge stone somewhere that says "internship for accountancy: 8.56 dollars an hour?"
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 01:42 PM |
|
|
|
isn't it what the final consumer agrees to pay?
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 04:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What person's perspective? You have a salary which equals X. You have monthly expenses for the very basic things in life like food and shelter which equal Y. It turns out that X is equal or even less than Y. Yet the employer and pretty much every other employer in the given economic sector won't pay more because they are thousands like you which don't have even X and will take your place if given the chance. You are working your ass out to barely sustain yourself and your family, your workload is getting increased on a monthly basis or even more often i.e. you invest more and more efforts and get the same remuneration but you are not underpaid? Seriously, sir, you should not believe in every ridiculous theory that the paid capitalistic apologists throw at you. Give it some thought at least.
See that bolded point there? Think to yourself, "Does this person feel underpaid?" Answer: probably! Not making ends meeet is one of the most influential factors on a perspective of feeling underpaid. Now Let's use the example of a CEO... will the CEO of a successful company that earns 20x his Y value complain about X? Will he say that he's underpaid? Not unless he lives on Wallstreet (Ahhh, you see what I did there...  )
You should not be so quick to denounce every social theory out there. Profiling when applied properly, while an invasion of personal rights, is more often than not completely or 95% accurate. Being underpaid is both a monetary value, but it is a state of mind that those who consistently cannot provide adopt. It's sort of depressing, and for a person who is clinically depressed can cause suicidal tendencies. It's crushing to live on, since you have never succeeded in providing before, you will fail again and again and again... It's an easy loop to get stuck in.
Fortunately in this great evil that you call a capitalistic society, we can write a book about it and get some money. And there is this thing called promotions that generally follow working your but off... Not always though, I'll be willing to admit that. Perhapse you should realize that not all people in the US are mind-slaves. I'll admit that there are problems, but that there are always solutions to said problems. Smog poisoning? Move out of the city. Not enough jobs in your overpopulated urban area? Well, pool together with some other people who don't have enough, gamble and start your own business in the suburbs. It won't be easy and you will fail a few times here and there, but each time you will learn and improve. The problem comes when people envision themselves as poor. When that happens, the poor stay poor because they have no will to change, adapt or grow. They'll complain, sure, heck they'll even act on an opportunity if it seems that they cannot fail, but actively persue and creat their own opportunities? Not common in the slightest.
Maybe in Belgium (Your country, right Xeno?) you don't have the option of creating a business of your own, maybe that warps your mindset, maybe mine is warped by living in the US, but I'm pretty sure that capitalistic pig dog countries allow people to succeed and fail at their own wills.
What do you think about welfare, BTW?
@ Fauch:
Quote:
no, but teachers don't necessarily know what they are talking about. maybe they just want to reassure themselves that they don't do their work for nothing.
Funny thing is, they don't! My father can support us at a middle-class level as a teacher and the sole provider for our average 4 person family. We have 2 cats, a house, 2 women (oh gods the shopping...), me (though I'll admit, my highest income consumption comes from food...) 2 cars and a rather nice lawn with gardens occupying half of them. We have a Wii, 2 TV's pay for Netflix every month (... really not that expensive, but still nice to have), beds and rooms for everyone (did I mention that the house has 2 stories?) 2 bathrooms and a whole busload of other stuff that I'm not going to take the time to list...
My father (a teacher) is again the sole provider. Then again Minnesota spends the most anually on public education in the US, so that might skew the statistics a bit...
Quote:
isn't it what the final consumer agrees to pay?
Thank you!
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 05:05 PM |
|
|
gnomes2169: Let me tell you a good story.
The best way out of poverty is education, and if your country has a costly education, you lose your first chance. 1/100 can perhaps manage to get scholarships and eternal debt, but in reality very few can do that. Why? Because the main resource for a kid is the enviroment his parents provide, and poor peasants provide a poor enviroment. Gangsterborn kids are raised in a even worse enviroment.
So you fail at that.... The second way out of poverty requires you to start a corporation or a trading location, some special type store perhaps? Whats the problem with this? This requires a ton of cash, and we assume you can't kill your parents and trade inn their propety to start it? I assume the most profitable way of aquirering money is still to be a drug dealer, because of the highly inflate price. So there ya go: The reasonable way to aquirering money.
We already failed at getting a education(Engineer), so we don't have a proper wage either
But, whats the problem with this? 1/10 startups succed, the 9 others end up in debt or are back to 0 because they failed.
So where can a poor man aquire the money to start a corporation without performing fraud, crime or pimping?
He can't.
And because he can't do that, he are forced to accept whatever is the minimum wage. If he are lucky, his connections will net him a job that has a little better wage, but its still not good enough.
So what I am saying is:
1. FIX education
2. Remove startup cost of making a corporation
3. Increase the minimum wage by a lot
Just doing these 3 points will partially FIX a lot of poor countries.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 14, 2011 05:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2. Remove startup cost of making a corporation
ROFL.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
