Does your personal NEED or WEAKNESS give you the right to demand?

by Terry 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

Terry

Let's start at the old desert island, shall we?
A group of survivors (just like the Tv show!) are marooned on an island with no way off.
They are all sorts of people with various strengths and weaknesses.
The strongest among them do the hardest work. The weakest benefit and try take up their slack as best they can.
However...
After a few months of this, it becomes very clear that certain persons just aren't doing their equal share of the work--but,
they certainly are eating their share of the food!
All are fed by those who are good at fishing, hunting for edibles and gathering coconuts and such.
These stalward providers start to feel a strong sense of being exploited by the weak and the no-producers.
Arguments break out.
"Why should I do more work than you and yet, you eat the same amount of food I do?"
The non-producers defend themselves by complaining it isn't fair they should go hungry just because they are weak,
unskilled or otherwise unequal to the task of bringing in food or building shelter.
Resentments set in. Arguments ensue. The group splits off from each other.
The strong, the skilled and the productive leave behind the weak, the unskilled and the non-productive.
Is there any MORALITY in being weak?
Is there morality in being strong and productive?
Does each group have an equal say in a survival/competition situation?
Does any group for any reason have a right to demand of others that they GIVE TO THEM just because they are weak?
What would such a demand be based on? Is survival in a hostile world "fair" to begin with?
The fictional character, John Galt, reacted to society's demands by removing himself and other talented and productive people from that decaying
and demanding social order. The productive gather together in an isolated community and await the ultimate demise of the needy and demanding world while creating a source of energy unlike any previously discovered....
Galt makes a public broadcast stating his reasons:
If you must act to benefit others, why is it acceptable for others to accept such benefits? Because they did not earn them. At its core, the Doctrine of Sacrifice is a doctrine that seeks the unearned.
Lack of value gives one a claim upon those who possess value. The doctrine elevates failure, weakness, need, incompetence, suffering, vice, and irrationality and regards them as moral claims on success, strength, wealth, ability, joy, virtue, and rationality.
On this inversion of values, one sacrifices morality and self-esteem, and becomes both victim and parasite, with no standard of how much sacrifice is enough.
In the spiritual realm, the Doctrine of the Unearned commands unconditional love, love based on need rather than value, love for those who do not deserve it -- because they do not deserve it.
On what basis, morally, would you agree or disagree?
Satanus

Back in tribal, hunter gatherer days, you had the weak, low producers right in there, part of the tribe. They seem to have coexisted within the tribes for millenia. What do you make of that? The weal coexisting w the strong in the same civilizational groups.
S
ballistic

My only critical thought is that it was the strong who grew resentfull and caused the arguments.
Maybe the could have convinced the weak into using other talents than physical strength? In an ideal world everyone works as a team whereby people compliment one another.
Terry

Back in tribal, hunter gatherer days, you had the weak, low producers right in there, part of the tribe. They seem to have coexisted within the tribes for millenia. What do you make of that? The weal coexisting w the strong in the same civilizational groups.
S
A family society differs from an artificial gathering of strangers. Familial ties over time create bonds which over-ride mere convenience.
One is less apt to "resent" our Mom laying about after a lifetime of nursing us, educating us, tending to us.
The point is that each of us CHOOSES whom to love, tolerate, assist, enable according to our own decisions.
But, if an outside group forced us to support strangers with our own hard work it would no longer be a choice.
Charity and benevolence vanishes and becomes servitude and compulsion under a central authority with the power to fine or punish.
Terry

My only critical thought is that it was the strong who grew resentfull and caused the arguments.
Maybe the could have convinced the weak into using other talents than physical strength? In an ideal world everyone works as a team whereby people compliment one another.
To have an ideal world you need ALL rational people operating rationally.
Rational people share the same premise: reality and practicality.
But, in the world we actually have....irrational people may well demand you serve them simply because they are weak or lazy or unable.
In a voluntary society you could refuse whom you wanted to refuse for your own personal reasons. Well and good.
But, if your support is mandated by a central authority with the power to punish you if you don't----this becomes a kind of indentured servitude.
Freedom vanishes and compulsory service destroys the ideal.
Example: You start a business with your own effort, hard work and money. It grows. You hire more people. It grows more. Success comes.
Then, your workers decide they want profit sharing, vacations, bonuses, health care, sick days, daycare...etc.
You talk to them and tell them whether you will or you won't based on the fact it is YOUR business.
Then, these workers threaten to walk off the job if you don't comply with their demands.
You tell them that is THEIR choice. If they leave you will hire replacements to fill their jobs.
Up to this point everything is voluntary and elective. Fair is fair.
What comes next?
The workers unite, form a Union and threaten to beat up any replacements trying to fill their job spot.
What do you have then? COMPULSORY advantage by brute force.
Is this a good thing? Many people will tell you "yes".
ballistic

Well, my previous answer was idealism. I don't really think their is any inbuilt fairness in capitalism, nor in the wider physical universe at all. Fairness is a construct which some peoples aspire to.
Terry

Well, my previous answer was idealism. I don't really think their is any inbuilt fairness in capitalism, nor in the wider physical universe at all. Fairness is a construct which some peoples aspire to.
Pure Capitalism (not a mixed economy) lets creative go-getters (without govenment help or penalty) start businesses and own the product of their own success. The market determines the price by supply and demand.
Unfortunately, Government seldom stays neutral. Politicians rig the outcome by creating laws FOR and AGAINST certain businesses and use the power and authority of their creating Law to ENRICH THEMSELVES through lobbying, donations, bribes and backroom dealing.
This form of Capitalism (mixed economy) creates Winners and Losers by legislation, Politics and Propaganda rather than free market forces.
You get what you deserve=fair
You get what you can bribe=unfair
The wretched mess that the American Government is in comes from lies, deception, fear-mongering, politicking and bloated rhetoric.
Both Liberals and Conservatives have special groups they cater to instead of serving ALL the people.
Victimhood rules the day.
WontLeave

There's always something to do that doesn't require great skill or natural ability. Something always needs washed, cooked, etc. I believe the movie Swept Away is a fair assessment of how things would go down. The best hunters would be the local rock stars and the least productive would pretty much become their servants. The larger the community became, the more diverse the needed and desired skills would become. If there's only 5 people and they're wondering where their next meal is coming from, artists are probably not in high demand, for example.
If someone lives in a thriving city and can't find some skill to hone into a productive living, they are probably not going to rise much above servant. These people, in our society, work in retail, service-oriented industries, blue-collar labor, etc. There are only 2 ways to be perceived as valuable: Do something someone else can't or do something someone else doesn't want to; or some combination of the two. The less of those you offer, the less valuable you become.
Terry

There's always something to do that doesn't require great skill or natural ability. Something always needs washed, cooked, etc. I believe the movie Swept Away is a fair assessment of how things would go down. The best hunters would be the local rock stars and the least productive would pretty much become their servants. The larger the community became, the more diverse the needed and desired skills would become. If there's only 5 people and they're wondering where their next meal is coming from, artists are probably not in high demand, for example.
If someone lives in a thriving city and can't find some skill to hone into a productive living, they are probably not going to rise much above servant. These people, in our society, work in retail, service-oriented industries, blue-collar labor, etc. There are only 2 ways to be perceived as valuable: Do something someone else can't or do something someone else doesn't want to; or some combination of the two. The less of those you offer, the less valuable you become.
Aye, Guv. I agree.
But, each day I drive on a busy street near the highway. Each and every day there stands one of three or four regular tattered able-bodied men of
under thirty-ish age. The have a small cardboard sign. It is small enough for them to quickly hide if a cop car comes near.
The sign says: HUNGRY-PLEASE HELP.
I've yet to see a time when a car did not roll to a stop and a stranger hand money or a to-go box with food out to these folk.
When my daughter and I sit out in front of Starbucks we will have at least two or three such persons approach and say "I need a bite to eat. Can you spare some change?"
Around the corner to the Starbucks is a Drug Treatment center.
At lunch time I'll sit in my car in front of the bookstore where I work and read.
On two occasions a young fellow has come up to my window with the same story of needing to catch the bus and having lost his busfare.
Could I please help him--he'll ask?
The first time I handed him whatever change I keep in my ashtray for parking meters. Then, he turned and went off in the opposite direction of
the bus stop.
The second time he asked I reminded him what he'd done the first time. He shrugged and walked off.
Somewhere between human need and enabling those who merely want a free ride is a wide road indeed.
I've watched some of these persons get really nasty when folks refuse them.
I've seen cops stop the soliciting and give a lecture only to have the beggar shoot the finger as the cop drives away and go right back to panhandling.
Among the addicted and the mentally impaired I don't really expect anybody to hold an honest job.
I just deal with each situation on a case by case basis.
Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.
JonathanH

Ayn rand's philosophy as presented in Atlus shrugged and any of her other books was flawed on the basis that it assumes an infinite supply of "Parasites" to take advantage of. The gist of John Galt's shpeel was "what if all the smart and talented people left? Wouldn't you parasites be screwed then!" But it never seems to ask what would happen to all the "smart and talented people" if all the "parasites" disappeared. Of course in rand's world the "parasites" are the ordinary worker, the person who isn't engineering the future, starting corporations, has become wealthy, ect, but rather just showing up and doing their job for a paycheck. The answer is that the "Galt's" of the world would be just as screwed if the parasites left. The corporation doesn't exist without the average joe six pack, the engineering doesn't get done if there isn't someone to do the manufacturing.
Even in your example of starting a company you make the assumption that you can just fire everyone and get new people and the only way this won't occur is that the people create an evil "union" and threaten you with violence if you try to do it. Which is a nonsensical answer that tries to paint collective bargaining as a sinister enterprise. But it doesn't factor in how damaging it would be to the company to try and replace and retrain every employee, and what if the next wave of employees also collectively bargain to improve their lot? Is this wrong? Your company won't exist if you don't have these parasites working, and it will destroy the company. So in reality aren't they the reason for your success just as much as you are?
The reality is that rand's view of "parasites" is actually a view of "symbiotes". Two organisms that need each other in order to function. The John Galts of the world would be screwed without the average worker, and the average joe would be screwed without smart talented people crafting the future. As much as the Galts may relish that their success and wealth is a result of their own brilliance, it is a result of their brilliance combined with the efforts of people willing to put their back into helping a good idea get off the ground in exchange for compensation. Ayn Rand describes a symbiotic system where both organisms need the other to survive, but one claims to be the important part of the symbioses that doesn't really need the other, it's just a gift being taken advantage of.
As for your island example, it is a different ethical problem, but with similar themes. The answer to it is simply that "fairness" and "Morality" have the tendency to act in different directions. What is fair is often times immoral, and what is moral is often times unfair. It may not be fair for the weaker people on the island to survive despite their weakness, but it would be immoral to let them starve to death on the basis of their weakness. The question you really need to ask is, which is more important for society? Fairness or Morality? Do we want a society based on a darwinian ideal that flourishes on destruction of the weak, or do we want one based on compassion, even if that compassion creates a drag on progress and wealth?
Of course as an atheist, I speak of morality as being a sense of empathy for other living things that fuels a desire to not see others harmed or do harm to others. Which in this case would mean not wanting other people to starve to death, especially when having the ability to feed them.

Does your personal NEED or WEAKNESS give you the right to demand?

Share this