What do you think of objectivism?
McTell wrote:
But, I contend that objectivism would tell me that I must ignore the man because I gain nothing good and something bad by saving him. I do not see any reason an objectivist could give for saving the man here without compromising their system.
That is not the case. The philosophy of Objectivism holds that you are not obliged to save him. That does not mean it forbids you to save him. Saving him is your choice. You might do it or you might not.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
McTell wrote:
But, I contend that objectivism would tell me that I must ignore the man because I gain nothing good and something bad by saving him. I do not see any reason an objectivist could give for saving the man here without compromising their system.
That is not the case. The philosophy of Objectivism holds that you are not obliged to save him. That does not mean it forbids you to save him. Saving him is your choice. You might do it or you might not.
In the most countries the law has here an other stand: If I am able to save someone without putting myself into serious danger, I obliged to do so. Not doing so is a serious crime.
And I think this is quite reasonable, because provides a basic safety network in emergency situations.
Dussel wrote:
In the most countries the law has here an other stand: If I am able to save someone without putting myself into serious danger, I obliged to do so. Not doing so is a serious crime.
And I think this is quite reasonable, because provides a basic safety network in emergency situations.
That is a legall obligation, not a moral obligation. We are both legally and morally enjoined from throwing people into the water in the first place.
It is well know that the Law is an Ass. Law is just another word for tyranny.
I am thankful that no such law exists in the United States.
Such a law implies that each of us is a slave to the needs of others, even strangers whom we may detest. I am morally obligated to do you (or anyone else) no wrong, but I am not morally obligated to do a favor for anyone other than my children. I am both morally and legally obligated to see to the care and safety of my children which I helped to bring into the world.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
McTell wrote:
I think point 3 is abhorrent crazy-talk.
Why? Do you think you are the door-mat of others? Do you think others are your door-mat?
ruveyn
I do not know about abhorrent crazy talk, but it's certainly incoherent.
What exactly is "an end"? In reality we can conceptualize all kinds of ends, but reality continues without pause.
Humans are environmental constituents. We are not isolates, either generally (as active participants within and constituent parts of the wider environment), socially (humans are socially-cooperative animals, no more evolutionarily adapted to going "solo" than other group living cooperative primates), or genetically (we receive genes from our ancestors, and if we are reproductively successful, furnish members of the succeeding generation with some of those genes).
We are not "ends" of any kind, but rather constituents within a continuum.
ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
In the most countries the law has here an other stand: If I am able to save someone without putting myself into serious danger, I obliged to do so. Not doing so is a serious crime.
And I think this is quite reasonable, because provides a basic safety network in emergency situations.
That is a legall obligation, not a moral obligation.
In this case it is a moral and a legal duty - it is kind of collective contract: I have the right to demands the help of other, I am obliged to provide such help ("Duty to rescue").
ruveyn wrote:
I am thankful that no such law exists in the United States.
Not correct - they exist in some states like Vermont.
ruveyn wrote:
Such a law implies that each of us is a slave to the needs of others, even strangers whom we may detest.
Not slaves - this rule is limited to prevent serious harm and only applies if the rescuer does not put himself into any danger.
ruveyn wrote:
I am morally obligated to do you (or anyone else) no wrong, but I am not morally obligated to do a favor for anyone other than my children.
I see this differently: There a moral obligation against any other human for basic help. This obligation is a reasonable surviving tool of our species.
timeisdead wrote:
Quote:
Absurd.
These illegal immigrants you speak of, find work and spend money. The businesses they support can afford to keep them here, and it is in the economy's best interest not to deport them. There is also the parallel phenomenon of the upper middle class and wealthy decisively not spending money in this economic downturn. Bear in mind that you are placing the weight of the majority of an entire nation's unemployment on a minority group whose jobs, if lost to Americans could not downsize the country's unemployment rate by more than a hair. The problem right now is not that those who can barely afford to are, it's that those who can afford more, aren't spending. In other words, potential employers have gone underground rather than make investments that provide jobs and break even for themselves despite potential long term growth and innovations.
These illegal immigrants you speak of, find work and spend money. The businesses they support can afford to keep them here, and it is in the economy's best interest not to deport them. There is also the parallel phenomenon of the upper middle class and wealthy decisively not spending money in this economic downturn. Bear in mind that you are placing the weight of the majority of an entire nation's unemployment on a minority group whose jobs, if lost to Americans could not downsize the country's unemployment rate by more than a hair. The problem right now is not that those who can barely afford to are, it's that those who can afford more, aren't spending. In other words, potential employers have gone underground rather than make investments that provide jobs and break even for themselves despite potential long term growth and innovations.
How is it in the economy's best interest? Those who lose jobs to illegal aliens often go on SSI, welfare, or unemployment. This, in turn, costs us more of our tax dollars. Those who are unemployed are also statistically more likely to commit crimes. With the rising crime rate, more and more would be imprisoned. Now where does this come from? Our tax dollars. With rising taxes, spending also decreases. Obviously, those who are unemployed won't be big spenders either. With the rising taxes and decreased revenue, many companies will be left with little choice but to fire or lay off workers in the U.S. As spending decreases, many stores/shops/ect go out of business and leave more unemployed. The vicious cycle then continues in a chain reaction...... "Cheap" labor isn't so cheap.
What's ironic about your view is that privatised prisons are profiting from your tax dollars as they have to enforce the laws that you agree should be upheld. You are essentially agreeing to pay for a capitalist prison system. How do you suppose a laissez faire would keep a prison system in business? Someone has to pay for it. Hey, why not use prison labour instead of creating jobs in America that pay people a living wage? sarcasm
I think you are still trying to blame illegal immigrants for the downfall of corporate America due to its internal mistakes in budget and production management. Illegal immigrants typically work migrant farm labour jobs or menial service jobs, but if they have trade skills, can find employment in development, and if they have connections in a larger city, they can seemingly progress in ethnocentric areas and neighbourhoods. These people have absolutely nothing to do with companies downsizing to compensate for the economy. Very few of the workers who are suffering from corporate lay offs are equipped to handle the kind of work that typical illegal immigrants perform. The labour drought is a result of outsourcing jobs to other countries, and not that illegal immigrants are competing for mid level positions in this country. Again, with the lack of investors creating new start up companies that are sustainable in America, corporations continue to outsource labour.
Quite frankly, the jobs that are outsourced, are not really anyone's version of the American Dream, either. Sure, when times are tough, Americans miss those jobs, but the reality of who ultimately would sustain them during thriving economic periods is the minority work force; lower income people keeping production costs low. To inflate the job market with production level employment would mean that the middle class would have to take a step down, get political, and demand living wages, thereby increasing the cost/lowering the profits of everything. The concept is described as fair trade.
The bulk of the currently unemployed due to the economic situation are at mid level jobs. Taking lower level jobs to survive would undermine not just illegal immigrants, but all of the American lower middle class and below, pushing people already on the brink of welfare into seeking government assistance. Tax dollars are going to be spent on social assistance regardless of the class level of the unemployed people with the exception of illegal immigrants, who honestly, have some of the most sustainable positions in the economy due to the marginalised nature of the work they perform. Any tax payer could argue for their own sake, the value of the welfare system when faced with a choice of working without benefits, full time, for slave wages, to being temporarily out of work with tax dollars working to sustain them.
ruveyn wrote:
I am thankful that no such law exists in the United States.
Dussel wrote:
Not correct - they exist in some states like Vermont.
ruveyn wrote:
Such a law implies that each of us is a slave to the needs of others, even strangers whom we may detest.
Dussel wrote:
Not slaves - this rule is limited to prevent serious harm and only applies if the rescuer does not put himself into any danger.
ruveyn wrote:
I am morally obligated to do you (or anyone else) no wrong, but I am not morally obligated to do a favor for anyone other than my children.
Dussel wrote:
I see this differently: There a moral obligation against any other human for basic help. This obligation is a reasonable surviving tool of our species.
These laws simply pertain to situations of reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Roughly, any situation of physical "rescue" should be left up to trained professionals.
Last edited by mixtapebooty on 07 Apr 2009, 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dussel wrote:
I see this differently: There a moral obligation against any other human for basic help. This obligation is a reasonable surviving tool of our species.
I disagree. Helping one's enemies, for example, is anti-survival.
In U.S. Common Law there is no general duty to rescue although in some specific cases there is (as in obliging emergency personnel to do their function).
See
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/duty2res.htm
There is in seven states statute law that impose a limited duty to rescue. Which means that in 43 states there is no such law. I am happy to live in a state with no such law.
The U.S. has not descended into the slew of altruism that Europe has been in for centuries.
Long live depraved indifference!
ruveyn
mixtapebooty wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
I am thankful that no such law exists in the United States.
Dussel wrote:
Not correct - they exist in some states like Vermont.
ruveyn wrote:
Such a law implies that each of us is a slave to the needs of others, even strangers whom we may detest.
Dussel wrote:
Not slaves - this rule is limited to prevent serious harm and only applies if the rescuer does not put himself into any danger.
ruveyn wrote:
I am morally obligated to do you (or anyone else) no wrong, but I am not morally obligated to do a favor for anyone other than my children.
Dussel wrote:
I see this differently: There a moral obligation against any other human for basic help. This obligation is a reasonable surviving tool of our species.
These laws simply pertain to situations of reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Roughly, any situation of physical "rescue" should be left up to trained professionals.
Not really - As the French, German, Austrian and other laws stand, your obliged e.g. to help in the case of car accident or an other situation alike. Failing so is considered a crime by the law. The charge in France differs from a fine up to five years imprisonment; in Germany up to one year in prison.
timeisdead wrote:
Quote:
Since there is no argument, I'll assume that you have come to understand that principle 2 is assuming the super power of omnipotence in human beings in your fictional system of social constructivism. When did you start trying to apply a philosophical approach to politics? Taking a stab at it, you sound like a Libertarian.
Are you suggesting we live our lives devoid of reasoning due to our imperfection as human beings? Without reasoning, there would be no progress. Reasoning is using facts and observations and using them to form conclusions. Without this, there would be no progress in the world.
And yes, I am a Libertarian.
At some point, everyone experiences a lack of reason in their lives.
ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
I see this differently: There a moral obligation against any other human for basic help. This obligation is a reasonable surviving tool of our species.
I disagree. Helping one's enemies, for example, is anti-survival.
In U.S. Common Law there is no general duty to rescue although in some specific cases there is (as in obliging emergency personnel to do their function).
See
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/duty2res.htm
There is in seven states statute law that impose a limited duty to rescue. Which means that in 43 states there is no such law. I am happy to live in a state with no such law.
The U.S. has not descended into the slew of altruism that Europe has been in for centuries.
Long live depraved indifference!
ruveyn
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Sand wrote:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Altruism is one of the prime evils of the human race. I oppose it. I believe in enlightened selfishness. There is only one thing worse than sacrificing one's self and that is sacrificing another.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Altruism is one of the prime evils of the human race. I oppose it. I believe in enlightened selfishness.
A duty to rescue fits very well into "enlightened selfishness": Because it does provide you with an extra safety-network. As the rules stands in diverse legislations, your never obliged to risk your own live or well-being, but your change of getting your live changed gets higher.
Dussel wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Altruism is one of the prime evils of the human race. I oppose it. I believe in enlightened selfishness.
A duty to rescue fits very well into "enlightened selfishness": Because it does provide you with an extra safety-network. As the rules stands in diverse legislations, your never obliged to risk your own live or well-being, but your change of getting your live changed gets higher.
My concern is that these laws were preventative for people who would take the opportunity to finish off the accident victims and get away with killing them instead of preventing their deaths.
mixtapebooty wrote:
dussel wrote:
A duty to rescue fits very well into "enlightened selfishness": Because it does provide you with an extra safety-network. As the rules stands in diverse legislations, your never obliged to risk your own live or well-being, but your change of getting your live changed gets higher.
My concern is that these laws were preventative for people who would take the opportunity to finish off the accident victims and get away with killing them instead of preventing their deaths.
We have this law at least since the General state laws for the Prussian states (Allgemeine Landrecht für die preußischen Staaten - §782 II 20 ALR) of 1794: At I never heard about such a case.