morals and ethics.......

Pre-College Issues High School Life
81

<p>
[quote]
That's a more flexible approach than applying the same rules to people of different backgrounds. Context is key.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If by flexible you mean hypocritical, then you are correct. Any ethical proposition can be evaluated for a truth value. Saying something like "murder is moral" is obviously not true because the person wishing to commit murder would say that those attempting to murder him are immoral. This is how you determine truth values for moral/ethical propositions.</p>

<p>It has nothing to do with context of backgrounds, but rather the context of the person making the proposal. Do you think murder is moral? Then you should have no problem with others killing you against your objections.</p>

82

<p>
[quote]
If you read my post more carefully, you would have noticed I was referring not to war in general. I was referring to cases where POWs were killed. How often do you have to decide to kill POWs? That's not to say those situations are not valuable for analysis but it seems odd that you would completely ignore the violence we see every day.

[/quote]

I do not ignore it, and I did know you were talking about war in general. But I was referring back to the war.
I do not ignore, i just posted about it if you had read it over again.</p>

83

<p>lol @ slippery slope arguments</p>

84

<p>here is my definition of moral: </p>

<p>if u slap someone, that is immoral. Why? If someone slapped you, you will not like it.</p>

<p>if someone came and helped you, it is moral.</p>

<p>so on and so forth.
Treat others as you want to be treated.
of course, this does not apply to those nutcases out there who like to be slapped etc.</p>

85

<p>lol @ narrowminded simplistic noobs</p>

86

<p>I should have fixed what I said earlier. People are not innately 'good' but do have an innate sense of what is morally good. A person would not naturally kill someone else just because. It goes against our behavior developed by evolution. People are not good because they are lead away from it by other people. Also, while people know what is right does not mean they do it.</p>

87

<p>It's not the problem of hanging out with bad people. Many people in the world are not morally sufficent, but that doesn't mean you can't be friends with them. When however they do something that is going to break your morals, just make up a lie to avoid it. Such as if they want to have a drinking contest, just say you have to get an operation the next morning or have a liver problem. Smoking? Say you need to keep your lungs ready for sports. Egging a house? Say that you're too tired, you'll keep watch, or that you need to go home about now for your parent's night party or to babysit your sibling.</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
When however they do something that is going to break your morals, just make up a lie to avoid it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lying is considered "immoral" as well, which is why this statement fits better under what I've said so far.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
It's not the problem of hanging out with bad people. Many people in the world are not morally sufficent, but that doesn't mean you can't be friends with them. When however they do something that is going to break your morals, just make up a lie to avoid it. Such as if they want to have a drinking contest, just say you have to get an operation the next morning or have a liver problem. Smoking? Say you need to keep your lungs ready for sports. Egging a house? Say that you're too tired, you'll keep watch, or that you need to go home about now for your parent's night party or to babysit your sibling.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tell me, how many corrupt people do you surround yourself with? Wouldn't the easier thing to do be to disassociate yourself?</p>

90

<p>
[QUOTE]
People should do the smart thing for themselves when it does not conflict with their innate sense of what is right and moral.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I agree with that only in the strictest sense. I find it ridiculous when people try to justify the actions of Gilded Age robber barons or similar figures today, because what they didn't cannot possibly be in any sane person's innate sens of "right and moral," unless said person completely ignores the big picture.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
People should never base their decision on what is good to society -- Atlas Shrugged anybody? --this just leads to stupid and irrational decisions.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>The problem with Ayn Rand is that even the villains try to advance their own interests, just using others as a means to do that. There is no character who actually tries to do what is good for society.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
People are innately good.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure about this one. I could see it as a possibility.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I do not think that a normal person would kill without being lead or being tricked (see religion).

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>They often would. There are the classic love triangle stories, and there are countless examples of murders for some type of material good.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
No morals aren't relative.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I think we have to accept some degree of relativity in morals. I believe there is clear right and wrong for every situation (unfortunately, people may disagree about exactly what is right and what is wrong, but I consider myself to be the judge of that : ) ), but no human can know all the circumstances surrounding an act. There are some cases in which we know enough about a situation to consider something immoral, but there are cases in which we don't. Luckily, in most situations that actually matter, we do know enough to pass judgement with a good chance of being "right".</p>

91

<p>
[quote]
I agree with that only in the strictest sense. I find it ridiculous when people try to justify the actions of Gilded Age robber barons or similar figures today, because what they didn't cannot possibly be in any sane person's innate sens of "right and moral," unless said person completely ignores the big picture.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Explain. Name specific instances where what a robber baron did was immoral.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The problem with Ayn Rand is that even the villains try to advance their own interests, just using others as a means to do that. There is no character who actually tries to do what is good for society.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not an objectivist, but what is so wrong with attempting to advance one's own interest? If other people wish to help you, how is that bad for those helpers? They would not have helped unless they would have been better off if they had.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure about this one. I could see it as a possibility.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is not really "a possibility"; it is a fact. We have already seen it played out where people who grow up in uncorrupted environments grow up to be good most of the time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They often would. There are the classic love triangle stories, and there are countless examples of murders for some type of material good.[.quote]</p>

<p>And you are ignoring the biggest influence on these murderers: parents. Even the most secular <em>insert adjective here</em> parents are usually still bad. Take perfectionism for example. Many parents always warn their child "do NOT drop that glass" even though they know that is a completely unreasonable expectation. Thus, they set their children up for failure later on in life.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think we have to accept some degree of relativity in morals. I believe there is clear right and wrong for every situation (unfortunately, people may disagree about exactly what is right and what is wrong, but I consider myself to be the judge of that : ) ), but no human can know all the circumstances surrounding an act. There are some cases in which we know enough about a situation to consider something immoral, but there are cases in which we don't. Luckily, in most situations that actually matter, we do know enough to pass judgement with a good chance of being "right".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I just want to add that truth and morals are relative in a sense. But that doesn't mean we can't make accurate judgments based on them. Newtonian physics is relatively worse than Einsteinian physics, but that doesn't mean calculations at low speeds on Earth (i.e. a boat trip) using Newtonian physics is wrong.</p>

92

<p>
[QUOTE]
Name specific instances where what a robber baron did was immoral.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<ol>
<li>Rebates, kickbacks, and bribes to important polticians against the law to try to drive honest competitors out of business.</li>
<li>Price discrimination against rural areas. (Ok, so this one's arguable.)</li>
<li>Violent strikebreaking practices (think Homestead strike).</li>
<li>Lowering costs by lowering wages. Some may argue, "well, those workers should've just quit." These people are ignoring how hard it was to find work at a business that both required few skills and was not owned by a robber baron. Although Carnegie in particular supported "self-improvement" to gain skills, the robber barons unintentionally prevented this by trying to increase the length of the work-day.</li>
</ol>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I just want to add that truth and morals are relative in a sense. But that doesn't mean we can't make accurate judgments based on them. Newtonian physics is relatively worse than Einsteinian physics, but that doesn't mean calculations at low speeds on Earth (i.e. a boat trip) using Newtonian physics is wrong.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>We can't make accurate judgements in all cases, and you have to admit that there are some cases in which we don't know enough to judge to a reasonable degree of accuracy. I guess that by analogy this would be like trying to plug data into an equation in Newtonian or Einsteinian physics and getting an answer with one significant figure. (Ok, bad analogy)</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
We have already seen it played out where people who grow up in uncorrupted environments grow up to be good most of the time.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<ol>
<li>How have we seen it play out?</li>
<li>Most of the time? If they volunteer in their community and vote, but they occasionally kill a few people here and there, are they still a good person?</li>
</ol>

<p>We really don't have much evidence yet to really suggest whether humans are innately good or evil, or can be either, or are born with a tabula rasa.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I'm not an objectivist, but what is so wrong with attempting to advance one's own interest? If other people wish to help you, how is that bad for those helpers? They would not have helped unless they would have been better off if they had.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with trying to advance your own interest. It's just that Ayn Rand views selfishness through rose-tinted glasses, without considering the trade-offs. Also, her examples don't really reflect what she means to say. Even her villains are looking out for their own interests.</p>

<p>And yes, people do help others without the expectation of being better off for it. Why do we hold open doors for random people we never expect to meet again?</p>

93

<ol>
<li>One thing I've noticed is that people tend to combine multiple attributes to a certain group. I would be careful to separate the political and market entrepreneurs. The former lobbies congress and does those things; the latter relies on innovation and other things. While many "Gilded Age" businessmen relied on political power, others did not. And still today, we can see this resentment towards the political entrepreneurs manifest itself against the market entrepreneurs. Do not mix these two up.</li>
</ol>

<p>In some cases, competitors of so-called Robber Barons lobbied congress for antitrust suits. James Hill comes to mind as someone who was a market entrepreneur but known as a robber baron.</p>

<p>Discrimination is not immoral. It's repulsive and aesthetically unpleasing, but it is not immoral. You discriminate all the time (when you choose what businesses to apply for an interview).</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If you look at the homestead strike and its surrounding circumstances, the union was violent to begin with and prevented "yellow dog contracts" by force. To claim that hiring a security force to deal with this threat is immoral is to say self-defense is immoral.</p></li>
<li><p>There is always work to be found if there are no barriers to jump. Of course, this barrier is called the minimum wage. If your marginal productivity is less than your cost to hire you, you won't get a job. Minimum wage causes this to happen.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
We can't make accurate judgements in all cases, and you have to admit that there are some cases in which we don't know enough to judge to a reasonable degree of accuracy. I guess that by analogy this would be like trying to plug data into an equation in Newtonian or Einsteinian physics and getting an answer with one significant figure. (Ok, bad analogy)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay, what cases?</p>

<p>
[quote]
1. How have we seen it play out?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How a child develops is based on his environment. Babies, not molded yet to a culture of corruption, don't try to kill people. They don't steal what they know is not their own.</p>

<p>
[quote]
2. Most of the time? If they volunteer in their community and vote, but they occasionally kill a few people here and there, are they still a good person?

[/quote]
</p>

<ol>
<li><p>By "most of the time", I was referring to multiple people. Grow X amount of people in Y good environment and most of X will be good. I was not saying person Y would be good most of the time and extremely evil the rest of the time.</p></li>
<li><p>Voting is not a good action. It is supporting violence.</p></li>
<li><p>Volunteering is a bit of a misnomer. If someone works for someone else for pay, is not the person who pays better off than before? "Volunteering" implies that wages are harmful, when they are not.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
We really don't have much evidence yet to really suggest whether humans are innately good or evil, or can be either, or are born with a tabula rasa.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And isn't tabula rasa really just "good"? Tabula rasa says that a person is formed by their environment. This is not all that different from saying people are innately good but often corrupted by their environment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And yes, people do help others without the expectation of being better off for it. Why do we hold open doors for random people we never expect to meet again?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Self satisfaction I guess. Asserting that a human action is in a person's interest does not entail figuring out WHY that is true. It is a priori truth.</p>

94

<p>
[QUOTE]
You discriminate all the time (when you choose what businesses to apply for an interview).

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>That's because I'm not qualified for all, and some are more desirable (more prestigious, higher salaries). That's completely fair. I'm sure the others wouldn't want me, anyway.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
3. If you look at the homestead strike and its surrounding circumstances, the union was violent to begin with and prevented "yellow dog contracts" by force. To claim that hiring a security force to deal with this threat is immoral is to say self-defense is immoral.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Yellow-dog contracts are immoral themselves. But, to get to the point, the Pinkertons were there before the violence began. Strikebreakers were being driven off, but not in a violent way.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to say that the actions of the union were moral in this case. They weren't. But the company wasn't being fair either. I admit that they did have the right to hire scab workers, but the strikebreakers were a bit too much.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
One thing I've noticed is that people tend to combine multiple attributes to a certain group. I would be careful to separate the political and market entrepreneurs. The former lobbies congress and does those things; the latter relies on innovation and other things. While many "Gilded Age" businessmen relied on political power, others did not.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Virtually all the railroad magnates relied on political power, as did Rockefeller and Morgan. Carnegie could be arguable, I guess. Market entrepreneurs do often employ political entrepreneurs, which leads to the resentment against them.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
And isn't tabula rasa really just "good"? Tabula rasa says that a person is formed by their environment. This is not all that different from saying people are innately good but often corrupted by their environment.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>If you reread my post, I am not arguing that humans are born with tabula rasa. I don't believe we have enough evidence yet to conclude. But tabula rasa is neither good nor evil, just like a comatose person isn't god or evil.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
How a child develops is based on his environment. Babies, not molded yet to a culture of corruption, don't try to kill people. They don't steal what they know is not their own.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Babies are unfamiliar with "murder" and "arson." They are similarly unfamiliar with "giving away millions of dollars to starving children" or "discovering the cure for cancer." In any case, they would be physically unable to do any of this.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
4. There is always work to be found if there are no barriers to jump. Of course, this barrier is called the minimum wage. If your marginal productivity is less than your cost to hire you, you won't get a job. Minimum wage causes this to happen.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I agree the the minimum wage limits the amount of jobs available by increasing the cost of labor, but then two more questions arise:
1. Is it worthwhile to get a job without a minimum wage? Sure, you'll get money, but will it come close to covering expenses?
2. Will these new jobs have unfair stipulations (yellow-dog contracts, closed shop), dangerous work conditions, or or long work hours that prevent self-improvement (which was the point of my comment)?
You see, the creation of new jobs isn't always good for workers. It's only good for the unemployed.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
1. By "most of the time", I was referring to multiple people. Grow X amount of people in Y good environment and most of X will be good. I was not saying person Y would be good most of the time and extremely evil the rest of the time.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>So now you're referring to their environment, which in this case is Y. This doesn't really show that they are inherently good; it just refers to the influence of their environment.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Voting is not a good action. It is supporting violence.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>That's not really the point, but I'd like to know why you think so. I don't completely disagree myself.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
"Volunteering" implies that wages are harmful, when they are not.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>No, it really doesn't.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Asserting that a human action is in a person's interest does not entail figuring out WHY that is true.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>So you believe it is in a person's interest? It causes a waste in energy and an increase in entropy, and most people don't even think about it, let alone dwell on their good deed.</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
That's because I'm not qualified for all, and some are more desirable (more prestigious, higher salaries). That's completely fair. I'm sure the others wouldn't want me, anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you agree that nobody is qualified to make these decisions, correct? If yes, then it would be immoral to impose these preferences upon other people. Hence anti-racism legislation (like the 1964 CRA) is immoral since it forces private businesses to do business with all people. There are other anti-discrimination laws, but this is the most prominent.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yellow-dog contracts are immoral themselves.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How so? They are just terms of employment that an employee voluntarily agrees to abide. In this case, the terms are to not join a union.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, to get to the point, the Pinkertons were there before the violence began. Strikebreakers were being driven off, but not in a violent way.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to say that the actions of the union were moral in this case. They weren't. But the company wasn't being fair either. I admit that they did have the right to hire scab workers, but the strikebreakers were a bit too much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think you comprehend the nature of labor unions back then (and to some extent today). These people send death threats to scabs and yellow dogs. Sometimes, they act upon these threats and hurt people. Strikebreakers are a form of self-defense when you're dealing with a mob of violent people.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Virtually all the railroad magnates relied on political power, as did Rockefeller and Morgan. Carnegie could be arguable, I guess.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Examples?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Market entrepreneurs do often employ political entrepreneurs, which leads to the resentment against them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is more of a binary definition to a certain extent. If you get political favors, then you are a political entrepreneur. Otherwise, you are not. James hill did not employ political favors for his railroad empire yet he was resented back then (and today) as a "robber baron".
James</a> J. Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The</a> Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you reread my post, I am not arguing that humans are born with tabula rasa. I don't believe we have enough evidence yet to conclude. But tabula rasa is neither good nor evil, just like a comatose person isn't god or evil.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, and in a state where you don't do anything evil, you are good. That's why tabula rosa would amount to agreeing that child with no environmental influences (e.g. a machine feeds it) would usually grow up to not do evil (hence the baby is good).</p>

<p>You don't have to give away your fortune or cure cancer to be moral. You can just not use force upon people against their will.</p>

<p>
[quote]
1. Is it worthwhile to get a job without a minimum wage? Sure, you'll get money, but will it come close to covering expenses?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't understand this criticism. It seems to imply that "living wage" jobs would be available if a set minimum wage existed. As I said before, if you cost more than you produce, nobody would hire you even with min wage laws.</p>

<p>
[quote]
2. Will these new jobs have unfair stipulations (yellow-dog contracts, closed shop), dangerous work conditions, or or long work hours that prevent self-improvement (which was the point of my comment)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These questions cannot really be determined by discussion. They largely depend on the culture and company. But this does tie into your next statement.

[quote]
You see, the creation of new jobs isn't always good for workers. It's only good for the unemployed.

[/quote]

So you would agree that workers enjoy privileges which remove rights from the unemployed. The privilege being cushy job conditions and the right is the right to form contracts.</p>

<p>I wouldn't agree that creating jobs is bad for current workers. You are only looking at the producers. In a market, workers are consumers and producers. When a company cuts cost, we all benefit in the long run.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So now you're referring to their environment, which in this case is Y. This doesn't really show that they are inherently good; it just refers to the influence of their environment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But an environment devoid of Y (a bland white room with machines) would still grow up similar children. Leave a baby in the wild by itself with food and it will grow up good. Without external influences, this baby will grow up "good". I believe this is called a null hypothesis. The hypothesis is that a good environment (e.g. good parents and other things) is required for a good child.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's not really the point, but I'd like to know why you think so. I don't completely disagree myself.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the State has stolen everything it owns. I could be more specific, but I think this article will do:
States</a> cannot own property - Mises Economics Blog</p>

<p>
[quote]
No, it really doesn't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You point at volunteering as a "good" action which implies that to some extent, working for money is not as good. Working for a wage just means that the person receiving the services deems your service worthy of monetary payment. An paid homeless shelter manager is still volunteering; he is free to pursue some other line of work but he chooses to work in service of the poor.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So you believe it is in a person's interest? It causes a waste in energy and an increase in entropy, and most people don't even think about it, let alone dwell on their good deed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>At that exact moment, it is in that person's interest. This point is not upon debate; it is simply that person's preference. It would be like me arguing to you "You do not like blue".</p>

96

<p>
[QUOTE]
So you agree that nobody is qualified to make these decisions, correct? If yes, then it would be immoral to impose these preferences upon other people. Hence anti-racism legislation (like the 1964 CRA) is immoral since it forces private businesses to do business with all people. There are other anti-discrimination laws, but this is the most prominent.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying that nobody's qualified to make these discriminations. Heck, I'm not even sure what discriminations you're talking about. What I said was that it was fine to discriminate in some circumstances, but that price discrimination was wrong (I wouldn't say immoral, but it was unfair). This fits in perfectly fine with the idea that the CRA was justified. As for its relation to my justification for immorality in a job search, that's based on the fact that I'm not qualified for some jobs. That's something that I technically can control.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
How so? They are just terms of employment that an employee voluntarily agrees to abide. In this case, the terms are to not join a union.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Well, enough companies used them that it was essentially impossible in some areas to get a job allowing union membership, effectively, though not intentionally, banning unions. The employees only superficially agree to the terms.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I don't think you comprehend the nature of labor unions back then (and to some extent today). These people send death threats to scabs and yellow dogs. Sometimes, they act upon these threats and hurt people. Strikebreakers are a form of self-defense when you're dealing with a mob of violent people.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Well, first of all, strikebreakers were hardly a form of defense considering that they were mostly unarmed (hence the fact that Pinkertons were hired). But that's beside the point. I'm not trying to argue that the actions of the union were morally justified. But the company acted with disproportionate force.</p>

<p>I have to go to sleep now, so I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.</p>

97

<p>Everyone acts on their self-interest. I think that Ayn Rand is just saying that it is a good thing that should be a virtue not a vice. If everyone did not act on self-interest but for the good for society who would be better. The people who would seemingly benefit would be living their lives for other people who would also seemingly benefit and on and on and on. I do not agree with all of her philosophies. </p>

<p>Innate morals are derived from genes which come from evolution. The genes that survived were favorable. Over time we were 'conditioned' to be nice to other people in our tribe etc. I am not explaining this well. See God Delusion by Dawkins.</p>

<p>I also think that people and companies should be allowed to discriminate on any terms they want whether they be racist or by religious views. The companies that will do the best will be the nondiscriminating ones. No not the ones who don't discriminate but the ones who don't discriminate for stupid reasons like race. But if a company doesn't want to hire white or black people they should be free to do that. </p>

<p>I think when people act on self-interest it helps everybody. It breeds competition and makes people stronger. The people working in the factories were better off than the non-workers. Some of the practices were illegal and should not be allowed but the robber barons did not do anything that wrong. I really do not know what I am talking about in this paragraph because I have not studied them. Lol.</p>

<p>As for the deaths in love triangles etc the people still knew that it was morally wrong to kill the other person. It was the anger that overcame them and blinded their instincts. Isn't that why they have a shorter prison sentence? Uncorropted people know not to murder as uincorrupted children are not racist or religious. They do not have any base to believe in the irrational.</p>

98

<p>By the way, I don't really trust von Mises, so all these links to the LvMI aren't really going to convince me.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Examples?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>For Vanderbilt, Gould, and other railroad magnates, it's pretty well acknowledged that they used bribery, rebates, and kickbacks to get contracts and land grants.</p>

<p>"The moral effect of this system on employees is even a more serious feature of the case than the injustice it works to competition. For a "consideration" railroad freight clerks give confidential information concerning freight going through their hands.It would certainly be quite as legitimate for post-office clerks to allow Mr. Rockefeller to read the private letters of his competitors, as it is that the clerks of a railroad give him data concerning their shipments. Everybody through whose hands such information passes is contaminated by the knowledge." - History of the Standard Oil Co., Ida Tarbell</p>

<p>You make repeated references to James Hill, but that is just one example of a Gilded Age entrepreneur who was not a robber baron. If you can prove that Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Morgan were all fair, just, and moral, I'll believe you.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Yes, and in a state where you don't do anything evil, you are good. That's why tabula rosa would amount to agreeing that child with no environmental influences (e.g. a machine feeds it) would usually grow up to not do evil (hence the baby is good).</p>

<p>You don't have to give away your fortune or cure cancer to be moral. You can just not use force upon people against their will.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>In a state in which you don't do anything evil because you don't do anything at all, you are not good. You would be neither good nor evil. Good is not "not evil".</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I don't understand this criticism. It seems to imply that "living wage" jobs would be available if a set minimum wage existed. As I said before, if you cost more than you produce, nobody would hire you even with min wage laws.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>But having a job that pays very little is almost as bad, or worse, as having no job. It would inhibit self-improvement and is not enough to pay expenses, which makes it essentially useless. Unfortunately, not having a job and instead trying to get some kind of education will only pay for itself in the long-term, and will cause a loss of money in the short-term.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
So you would agree that workers enjoy privileges which remove rights from the unemployed. The privilege being cushy job conditions and the right is the right to form contracts.</p>

<p>I wouldn't agree that creating jobs is bad for current workers. You are only looking at the producers. In a market, workers are consumers and producers. When a company cuts cost, we all benefit in the long run.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>One could argue that being able to survive (which you call "cushy job conditions") is a right, not a privilege. However, the right to contract only applies to government interference in contracts, especially to violating their terms. In America, we haven't even fully established the right to contract, which is a good thing to some extent. However, the point is that these unemployed people still have the right to form contracts, just not the opportunity. Therefore, their rights are not being violated. There is no "right" to a job. Both of us know that unemployment varies based on swings in the busines cycle, and even with government interference to flatten the business cycle, there will always be unemployment. Now, I'm not saying that the unemployed should just die. We've established enough social programs (welfare and unemployment benefits) to deal with that.</p>

<p>About cutting cost and its effects on workers, that depends on how costs are cut. Cutting costs through an increase in efficiency will always benefit everyone. Cutting costs through cutting wages will only superficially benefit workers; in reality, an undue strain of the trade-off from cutting costs (cutting wages) is placed on them. That's why everyone hates Wal-Mart.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
But an environment devoid of Y (a bland white room with machines) would still grow up similar children. Leave a baby in the wild by itself with food and it will grow up good. I believe this is called a null hypothesis. The hypothesis is that a good environment (e.g. good parents and other things) is required for a good child.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure one could call environment Y a good environment. It would be better to call it a "neutral environment", because nothing in it encourages being "good", and the babies will probably just end up normal and somewhat ignorant. We've never tried this, so we'll never really know; in any case, the real problem is that our definitions of "good" differ.</p>

<p>By the way, a "null hypothesis" is a hypothesis that is assumed to be true and must be disproven through statistical evidence.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
You point at volunteering as a "good" action which implies that to some extent, working for money is not as good. Working for a wage just means that the person receiving the services deems your service worthy of monetary payment. An paid homeless shelter manager is still volunteering; he is free to pursue some other line of work but he chooses to work in service of the poor.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>In some cases, working for money isn't as good. If you have nothing better to do and no need for money and you decide to work, wouldn't it be better not to waste the money of donors or taxpayers? I'm not saying that working for compensation is evil.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
At that exact moment, it is in that person's interest.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Well, how do you know? Just the fact that a person does something does not prove that it is in his interest. Now, it would some weird for it not to be, but one has to deal with even the strangest possibilities.</p>

99

<p>What good are morals? There is no God...there is no one judging you after you hit the dust. Not to say don't have a conscience, because that is an ingrained trait in most of us, but there isn't a good reason to go to church every sunday or pray to some God who isn't there.</p>

<p>Perhaps its just me, but I really don't see the point of it all.</p>

100

<p>praying is a waste of time if you have mental strength (feel free to conclude the contrapositive of that statement)</p>