= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OrphanWilde comments on LW Women Entries- Creepiness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (472)
Freedom from consequence. The fundamental argument there is that workers have little freedom because, for example, they have to eat, they have to pay their bills, etc. It's the argument, at its root, that the price we pay for our decisions shouldn't be too high - and, to recycle my words, that our decisions should be fundamentally trivial. Whether or not we go to work today shouldn't affect us too much more than whether or not we wear a red shirt or a blue shirt.
And by this I don't mean such individuals want to be -completely- free of consequence, just free of any consequence that substantially burdens them, that makes their lives substantively worse. They're fine with consequence, so long as the consequence is inconsequential. (The precise extent varies by individual, but the basics exist there in some extent.)
you're moralizing altogether too hard. The argument isn't that workers should be FREE of consequences, it's that the consequences are disproportionately on them for the decisions of others. This is an argument of fact, and whatever you think may be the correct moral response to this is up to you, but I think it's definitely true that holders of capital have more power in employment decisions than laborer and that this works out badly for the laborers because they suffer from coordination problems in bargaining.
I don't regard freedom as a morally desirable state, but rather a state necessary to morality.
And the author doesn't make that argument. He/she states that obligations such as "debts, families, and of course social obligations" put workers in a weaker bargaining position. The argument is heavily detached from its implications, but those implications are no less there for it - until workers are without such obligation, without the need to work for food and board, they are in a state of coercion. Until the decisions of workers do not actually matter, they - being in a state of coercion - have little freedom of their own.
The author is the one moralizing, with cautious implications, exacting connotations, and carefully evaded implications. My response is merely to point out what it is.
The word 'coercion' might be slipping in some unwarranted connotations, but this seems roughly correct to me. There's a reason that having enough wealth saved up to live comfortably for an extended period of time is popularly known as having 'f**k you money'.