December 6, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
. . . Neither those laws, nor the principles upon which they are based are arbitrary. ...
Could you please quote someone who reconciled the concept of the Common Law, which goes back to at least 1215 with direct antecedents in the Scandinavian law going back to ~800 AD, with Darwin?
If we took a poll, which one would be voted be arbitrary - "All men are created equal ..." or "survival of the fittest"?
History being what it (supposedly) is, it looks that the former one, admittedly arbitrary, gave better outcomes to its adherents.
December 7, 2011 at 3:44 am
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
I dispute the notion that *all* laws (and all decisions) are arbitrary. Many perfectly good and just laws are made objectively by reference to a moral principle, and constrained by the limits of justifiable use of force (to enforce them). Laws against theft and murder are clear examples. You have inalienable rights to your property and your life, and it is justifiable to use force in defense of those (and to delegate that use of force to the governing legal authority). Neither those laws, nor the principles upon which they are based are arbitrary.
Whilst individual property rights are essentially a bedrock of our current society it has not always been thus. I am pretty sure many early Christian and Aboriginal societies managed fine without property. The US state also sanctions murder. All those boundaries could be reset. I think Steve's well reasoned post absolutely stands.
December 7, 2011 at 4:23 am
call.copse (12/7/2011)
...The US state also sanctions murder...
Murder by definition is an illegal killing. You could say that capital punishment is state-sanctioned killing, but murder it is not.
Infact the bible makes this quite clear: The ten commandments in the original Hebrew say quite clearly "Thou shall not murder". Later mistranslations to "Killing" have taken hold, but there is no ambiguity in the original.
December 7, 2011 at 5:08 am
iposner (12/7/2011)
call.copse (12/7/2011)
...The US state also sanctions murder...Murder by definition is an illegal killing. You could say that capital punishment is state-sanctioned killing, but murder it is not.
Infact the bible makes this quite clear: The ten commandments in the original Hebrew say quite clearly "Thou shall not murder". Later mistranslations to "Killing" have taken hold, but there is no ambiguity in the original.
Ahh, right, so when the system does get it wrong (miscarriages are inevitable and proven many times in all societies that have ever had such penalties) then that doesn't count? By allowing the death penalty you implicitly endorse such possibility. Whilst legally accepted I could not really call it anything other than murder. You might consider the assassination of OBL. What judiciary endorsed that punishment exactly?
The only point I'm making here is that there is a debate available on both property and murder.
December 7, 2011 at 7:45 am
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
I dispute the notion that *all* laws (and all decisions) are arbitrary. Many perfectly good and just laws are made objectively by reference to a moral principle, and constrained by the limits of justifiable use of force (to enforce them). Laws against theft and murder are clear examples. You have inalienable rights to your property and your life, and it is justifiable to use force in defense of those (and to delegate that use of force to the governing legal authority). Neither those laws, nor the principles upon which they are based are arbitrary.
Fair argument, but moral principles are arbitrary. The inalienable right to property existed at the founding of this country. If you weren't black. Today we have a law, and an argument about copyright, and digital property. What is your property? Eminent domain decrees that sometimes your inalienable right is not really your right.
Murder is hard to argue, though we allow self defense, capital punishment, etc. Those aren't murder because they're sanctioned, or codified in law somehow. But that's arbitrary. Not without basis, or careful consideration, but it's a line arbitrarily drawn.
It's easy to say I find a job on Monster, I apply, I get hired and agree to work for someone at xx price and that's a fair transaction. I agree. However not every transaction is that free and fair. If someone comes into the country illegally, and agrees to work for $0.50/hour because they want to barely survive in the US, is that fair? It it fair to take advantage of their situation?
I think that employment with a company is fundamentally a "take advantage of" situation. Someone has a business, offers a job, and grows their own assets on the work of others, who are compensated for less than the value they produce. Overall, I'm fine with the concept, and I suspect the majority of civilization is as well. However when that exceeds some arbitrary limit, we have bumpers in place as laws.
Or at least I believe we should have some bumpers in place. To not have those in place, IMHO, is to invite a race to the bottom, a race to a monopoly driven, dictatorial style civilization. A well developed society requires some level of give and take for the greater good, building a fair environment for all, but not equal. We want to have reasonable treatment of people as individuals, but we shouldn't treat them the same. They need to have freedom to succeed and fail on their own efforts, but not so much that their success requires others to be oppressed.
I'm not sure I'm explaining myself as well as I'd like. I'm not sure that we're that far apart in terms of how we want to see the world, but I don't think I see the world as black and white as your (Tony) last couple posts seem to imply. At least to me.
December 7, 2011 at 11:26 am
Just so I am clear on this.
Overtime is Murder if you are not compensated fairly. However, Overtime is simply Killing you if you are compensated.
Does Overtime float like a duck?
December 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/7/2011)
(...) It's easy to say I find a job on Monster, I apply, I get hired and agree to work for someone at xx price and that's a fair transaction. I agree. However not every transaction is that free and fair. If someone comes into the country illegally, and agrees to work for $0.50/hour because they want to barely survive in the US, is that fair? It it fair to take advantage of their situation?I think that employment with a company is fundamentally a "take advantage of" situation. Someone has a business, offers a job, and grows their own assets on the work of others, who are compensated for less than the value they produce. Overall, I'm fine with the concept, and I suspect the majority of civilization is as well. However when that exceeds some arbitrary limit, we have bumpers in place as laws. (...)
Yes, it is completely fair to pay someone $0.50/hour, or even one penny per day, provided he does so of his own volition, and you hire him of your own volition. In practice, of course, this extreme doesn't happen, but the principle still holds. *IF* it is a mutually agreeable deal to the two parties involved, how is it anyone else's business to interfere and forcibly prohibit the transaction?
Now, that said, let's look at a more realistic scenario: "George" has very limited skills, and no demonstrable job history. No other person currently values his employment to be any better than, say, $4.00/hr. George is perfectly willing to work for $4.00/hr, and there are people who would actually pay him that for his work. YES: A person who hires him at $4.00/hr is exploiting George's willingness to work at that rate... but how is that any different than my employer's exploitation of *my* willingness to work at the rate that I do? And if exploitation, as such, is morally wrong, what about the fact that I exploit my employer's willingness to pay me what they do? Indeed, *every* contract is an example of each party exploiting (taking advantage of) the other's willingness to trade for what he has to offer in exchange.
How is it "fair" to judge *other* people's level of willingness to engage certain transactions, and to forcibly prohibit a transaction that *they* find agreeable?
December 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/7/2011)
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
I dispute the notion that *all* laws (and all decisions) are arbitrary. Many perfectly good and just laws are made objectively by reference to a moral principle, and constrained by the limits of justifiable use of force (to enforce them). Laws against theft and murder are clear examples. You have inalienable rights to your property and your life, and it is justifiable to use force in defense of those (and to delegate that use of force to the governing legal authority). Neither those laws, nor the principles upon which they are based are arbitrary.(...) Fair argument, but moral principles are arbitrary. (...)
Some of us don't think so.
But that topic is *way* beyond the scope of a Forum Post here 🙂
December 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Tony Palmeri (12/8/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/7/2011)
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
I dispute the notion that *all* laws (and all decisions) are arbitrary. Many perfectly good and just laws are made objectively by reference to a moral principle, and constrained by the limits of justifiable use of force (to enforce them). Laws against theft and murder are clear examples. You have inalienable rights to your property and your life, and it is justifiable to use force in defense of those (and to delegate that use of force to the governing legal authority). Neither those laws, nor the principles upon which they are based are arbitrary.(...) Fair argument, but moral principles are arbitrary. (...)
Some of us don't think so.
But that topic is *way* beyond the scope of a Forum Post here 🙂
All morality is arbitrary unless rooted in survival mechanics of the species. It is a preference of the way we view the world and how we'd like it to work and do our best to encourage that viewpoint in others. Yes, I do subscribe to Heinlein's viewpoint in these matters.
One of the reasons for enforced minimum contractual amounts is to reduce the wage wars amongst the uneducated and immigrants. If you review history, review the 'Company Store' problem that once existed amongst miners through the 17 and 1800s. Even depression level wage wars occurred. We'll avoid the Union vs. Corporation argument for this, as the unions are separate representatives in their industries and not universal government mandates.
As to a right to complain, I would disagree with that. Heck, I disagree with the removal of capital punishment, instead of a $0.15 bullet we spend 2 million dollars in case of the occassion a jury of people too bored or stupid to get out of jury duty got it wrong keeping someone incarcerated until they die of natural causes.
Laws are arbitrary impositions of the will of the jurisdiction that the local populace abides in control of their lives. One of the impositions we don't suffer in the United States (much) is that they can't tell us to stop complaining about what they've imposed. There is only one inalienable right: To try to take what you can via strength before another force stops you from doing so. Anything else is something we've chosen to try to keep for ourselves and others. We are sentient, yes. Like all other animals though, there is a natural law and an imposed law. Two packs of wolves meet, they are either merged (conquered) or one pack is run off. This is nothing new to nature.
We *should* be better due to our sentience and our ability to sympathize with the results of our actions on others. I have no right to expect anyone to do so however. I personally impose my right to make sure that those actions are in my best interest when it is not counterproductive to my other choices. If Minimum Wage, for example, keeps the masses from rioting in the streets and my life is not in danger due to this, I will encourage such an event. If some random overtime law comes into play that affects me in a way I believe is undue, I will whine, complain, and whine some more. Probably even publically and at someone with power to try to make a change. Doesn't mean I'm going to go storm the capital, they're bigger than I am.
The only inalienable rights we the people have are the ones that we as the mob refuse to allow letting go of to the ones we hand the guns to.
EDIT: I should mention Tony that you are a pleasure to debate with, for the same reasons listed earlier. You're passionate but not letting the fire get under your skin.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
December 8, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Tony Palmeri (12/8/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/7/2011)
(...) Fair argument, but moral principles are arbitrary. (...)Some of us don't think so.
But that topic is *way* beyond the scope of a Forum Post here 🙂
If you have a quick example, I'd like to hear it. Don't forget that different cultures/ethnic groups/religions view things differently. While I might not agree with other views, I don't want their moral principle pushed on me, any more than they want mine on them.
Even if you go to the Bible/Torah/Koran, those principles are arbitrary. There are different interpretations of them, as well as different translations, and the morals can be situational (robber points a gun at my kids, can I kill him?).
BTW, I'm not upset, and you are making some good arguments. I'm just not sure I agree with them. They seem shortsighted, looking at things from an individual standpoint, and not a societal one. Or maybe I'm the one confused about how to look at things.
December 8, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/8/2011)
Tony Palmeri (12/8/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/7/2011)
(...) Fair argument, but moral principles are arbitrary. (...)Some of us don't think so.
But that topic is *way* beyond the scope of a Forum Post here 🙂
If you have a quick example, I'd like to hear it. Don't forget that different cultures/ethnic groups/religions view things differently. While I might not agree with other views, I don't want their moral principle pushed on me, any more than they want mine on them.
Even if you go to the Bible/Torah/Koran, those principles are arbitrary. There are different interpretations of them, as well as different translations, and the morals can be situational (robber points a gun at my kids, can I kill him?).
BTW, I'm not upset, and you are making some good arguments. I'm just not sure I agree with them. They seem shortsighted, looking at things from an individual standpoint, and not a societal one. Or maybe I'm the one confused about how to look at things.
I think I could make an argument that humans share some of what we call 'morals' with other species of mammals; for example, special consideration for mothers with babies. If we agree that this is a moral principle, we can make a case that it is one that comes from our genes and therefore is not arbitrary.
December 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Revenant (12/8/2011)
I think I could make an argument that humans share some of what we call 'morals' with other species of mammals; for example, special consideration for mothers with babies. If we agree that this is a moral principle, we can make a case that it is one that comes from our genes and therefore is not arbitrary.
I'd agree we share these traits, but I'm not sure what a special consideration for mothers with babies means as a moral principle.
My point is that the morals we espouse or choose to live by are arbitrary lines in the sand. Firm, strong lines for each of us, but drawn differently from person to person. The laws we make, governing payment or moral actions, are an attempt to codify some "average" of these lines we have. As a society, we agree that certain principles must be followed or there is a repercussion.
December 8, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Revenant (12/8/2011)
<snippity snip>
I think I could make an argument that humans share some of what we call 'morals' with other species of mammals; for example, special consideration for mothers with babies.
Depends entirely on what you mean by special consideration for mothers with babies - most wildlife shows I've seen show that the hunters (lions/cheetahs/crocs etc) do display a special consideration for the babies...much easier to catch when the herd is spooked.
December 8, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Does Overtime float like a duck?
It's a fair cop
December 8, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/8/2011)
Revenant (12/8/2011)
I think I could make an argument that humans share some of what we call 'morals' with other species of mammals; for example, special consideration for mothers with babies. If we agree that this is a moral principle, we can make a case that it is one that comes from our genes and therefore is not arbitrary.I'd agree we share these traits, but I'm not sure what a special consideration for mothers with babies means as a moral principle.
My point is that the morals we espouse or choose to live by are arbitrary lines in the sand. Firm, strong lines for each of us, but drawn differently from person to person. The laws we make, governing payment or moral actions, are an attempt to codify some "average" of these lines we have. As a society, we agree that certain principles must be followed or there is a repercussion.
Well, that's why I took care to make my statement conditional. I agree that the very opinions of what is moral or ethical differ widely. In fact, it would be difficult to argue that. 🙂
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 88 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply