Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86

Thread: there are two main philosophies in life

  1. Top | #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    227
    Rep Power
    26

    there are two main philosophies in life


    1. That all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work and equal punishment for equal crimes
    2. That some people are superior to others and deserve more money, honor, and power than the "inferior people" or "inferior races" even if they do the same work

    There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior. Civilized laws are laws that do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights above what all others have. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

  2. Top | #2
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,186
    Rep Power
    23
    People switch back and forth between those "main philosophies" all the time, though.

  3. Top | #3
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,425
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,939
    Rep Power
    55
    I've thought about making a similar thread before. I think your question is better phrased as:

    Should genetic differences play a key role in our status and opportunity in any given community, or should we be working toward equality for all regardless of genetic differences

    The tricky part is that the former is literally what it means to be alive, while the latter lends itself to a better playing field. I'd suggest that maybe a blend of the two ideas is what leads to a well-functioning society.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,911
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,857
    Rep Power
    68
    Are their really any genetic differences of significance within humanity?

  5. Top | #5
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,186
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Are their really any genetic differences of significance within humanity?
    Oh yes! But not in the way that racists/sexists/classists imagine. I note that such folks often know very little about the real science of human genomic diversity.

  6. Top | #6
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,425
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,939
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Are their really any genetic differences of significance within humanity?
    I'll put it another way:

    The same parents with five children of wildly different ability - with varying ability to exploit niches in their environment to make an income. One of the children makes a lot of money, another is very poor. Does the rich child deserve what he earned?

  7. Top | #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    227
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Are their really any genetic differences of significance within humanity?
    Autism, Aspergers, Schizoid...
    There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior. Civilized laws are laws that do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights above what all others have. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

  8. Top | #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    227
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Are their really any genetic differences of significance within humanity?
    I'll put it another way:

    The same parents with five children of wildly different ability - with varying ability to exploit niches in their environment to make an income. One of the children makes a lot of money, another is very poor. Does the rich child deserve what he earned?
    If they do more work then they deserve more pay

    Equal pay for equal work
    There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior. Civilized laws are laws that do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights above what all others have. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,260
    Rep Power
    15
    (I think I agree with rousseau's implied meaning here.)
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    ... One of the children makes a lot of money, another is very poor. Does the rich child deserve what he earned?
    Does the wolf deserve to kill and eat the lamb it just outraced?

    Discussion of an economics issue often goes astray as soon as a word like "deserve" is introduced.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    2,565
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    (I think I agree with rousseau's implied meaning here.)
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    ... One of the children makes a lot of money, another is very poor. Does the rich child deserve what he earned?
    Does the wolf deserve to kill and eat the lamb it just outraced?

    Discussion of an economics issue often goes astray as soon as a word like "deserve" is introduced.
    As with all moral issues it depends on the context. There are no moral absolutes (well there is only one in my book, but that gets us off on a tangent). In the context of the most prevalent current economic system commonly referred to as capitalism yes it is deserved. It would be unethical for what is earned to be denied. But the system isn't purely capitalistic. If it was every citizen would have access to capital. That is, they would have enough wealth that they could survive with a surplus sufficient to invest in personal development and to take advantage of opportunities when they appear. So we provide government and some private programs for the redistribution of wealth that are partially socialistic. Personally I think there should be a better term to describe this hybrid system. So my answer is yes that they deserve what they earned but not all of it. The system wouldn't work. And since they benefit from the system they are obliged to share some portion of their wealth with those less advantaged. And if you really want to call it capitalism that portion has to be enough to provide everyone with that minimum required so that they can participate as capitalists. At least a reasonable chance, rather than becoming trapped in a system that becomes dependent on their remaining in a state of poverty.

    But there are other contexts out there. Looking for something with a more objectively moral basis many people look to religion. Many religions believe that a God or other creation force defines a higher or purer measure of individual human value. Often though that value is determined by arcane requirements that serve to divide people more than unite them. And many philosophically derived ethical systems are limited by either the ability to apply them universally or by their lack of adaptability in terms of fostering human advancement. So the system we have now, while secular, requires some adjustment in order to become truly humanistic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •