. If God is just then there should be no injustice
2. There is injustice
Ergo,
3. God is not just [1, 2, MT] — Agent Smith

You're missing some premises to make this valid.

Substitute "Ghandi" in for "God" and you'll see why.

You're going to have to define God in your syllogism as that which eliminates the possibility of injustice. I'm not sure that is a generally accepted notion of God. Most religions accept that there is injustice.

Yes it does. Intelligent people see 'the big picture,' they think about more than themselves and their family, they also consider the wider community, their nation and the planet they live on. — universeness

You're describing an ideal morality, not "intelligence." You can be an evil genius.

How can intelligent people consider other people inferior due to the colour of their skin or their tradition or their culture or the fact that they are less technically advanced than you. — universeness

Because they are immoral.

Yeah, their economic slave system made them technically stagnant and mainly backwards.
Another major difference was that the South had no navy to speak of, so the union blockades of Southern ports were eventually very decisive. — universeness

Why are you now offering additional reasons for the South's loss of the war when you previously argued it was due their having adopted an evil system?

No, because no SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CIVILISATION has ever in history said rape was moral. — universeness

See: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=nlj, particularly page 7 and footnote 20. Rape of black women was legal during times of slavery.

Marital rape was legal in every state in the US until 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States

What the Bible says about rape: https://www.openbible.info/topics/rape

See also the English law of Coverture, where a woman had no legal rights of her own, but was the legal property of her husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

Where did I mention gods or supernatural BS? — universeness

You didn't. You presented a justice prevails because it is just argument which is essentially the same thing. It argues that as long as we fight for righteousness we will prevail.

Your point here again merely states the obvious and the much more important point is that the human race continues to progress and is in its totality, more moral and does in its totality behave better towards each other in general, in comparison with our ancestors. — universeness

If my point is obvious, then why do you argue otherwise? I have submitted that the majority will is irrelevant when deciphering morality.

I don't always look for backup or counter opinions from long dead philosophers, I prefer to listen to those alive now and without, of course, ignoring the mistakes of the past often highlighted by such as the person you refer to. — universeness

Super.

All I can say is 'right back at you!' So, give a real example from history that supports your claim.
Was there a referendum of the British people taken before the thugs in their royaly or military decided to go to war with the French, for example? Where all the people in Clan Campbell above the age of 16, male and female, democratically consulted before their clan chief and his top thugs/gangsters decided to fight those from Clan Macdonald?
Was there a referendum before America joined WW 2. Was that what took them so long? :halo: (No offense intended). — universeness

How does this contradict the idea that a democracy can be tyrannical?

I do not. You regard the severely depressed as morally similar to sadists and abusers? — hypericin

I don't know if it's a moral similarity because there certainly appears to be something more sinister in harming others than in harming yourself. Not all moral violations are of the same magnitude.

I do think it's worthwhile however to make the point that if we hold humanity in high esteem, we can't overlook the lack of self-respect we offer ourselves as morally irrelevant.

Of course they were stupid! They caused a bloody civil war due to their stupid economic model and their pursuit of profit and power for a racist, sycophantic few who leached off of the backs and sweat of enslaved people who they considered inferiors. That's why the South was utterly defeated. It was really stupid and moronic to bring such devastation onto themselves instead of getting rid of slavery themselves and sharing the resources of the South with all 'Americans.' Of course, the first issue for Americans is their genocide of the native tribes. — universeness

It was certainly immoral and wrong, but trying to preserve an economic system that resulted in great wealth doesn't point to a lack of intelligence. While it would be delightful to join in your world view that justice always prevails and it was for that reason the South lost, I think more mundane causes can be given for their loss. Specifically, the South was agrarian, lacked resources, had a smaller population, and experienced little to no immigration. They were also outmaneuvered politically so that larger numbers of states remained loyal to the union than the confederacy.

The point being that slavery had existed hundreds of years in America at the time of the Civil War, and it wasn't that it just finally exploded from being unjust. I wish that were the case. It would mean that we need only sit back and wait for those unjust nations in existence today to finally become enlightened.

No Its not, that's just naive. Morality is a human invention (or at least an invention of sentience). I think that the majority of humans NOW accept that rape is morally wrong. That morality is created BASED ON that OPINION of the majority. It then has the force needed to become an objective truth BUT only an objective truth within human civilisation. The role of the majority is essential in determining HUMAN morality. — universeness

And such is subjectivism. It means rape was moral when the population said it was. If morality is an opinion, then it is fluid. Should rape fall into favor, it will be moral, as you are relying upon the majority to tell you good from bad.

. Whenever evil grows too big for its boots, it gets smashed. — universeness

Again, whether you intend for this or not, you are arguing a theistic view, where nations rise and fall on the basis of their aligning themselves with good or evil. It ignores entirely the ebb and flow of good and evil within nations, ignoring the fact that a seemingly good Germany became evil, focusing only on the fact that an evil Germany fell. Why can't we argue that when a nation becomes too good it too gets too big for its britches and then it must become evil? We can tell the tale of how good fell to evil as much as evil fell to good.

If you want to understand the rise and fall of Nazi Germany, there are plenty of good historical treatises that can explain the social changes, political changes, and the details of each battles fought. The point being, the answer to such historical questions lies within the historical events, not just some statement that we win when God is on our side and we lose when he's not.

If you add the Jews, to the gypsies, the slavs, the catholics, etc, etc all the non-aryans then you have a vast majority! yes? — universeness

I don't know if the oppressed outnumbered the oppressors or not, but it's screamingly irrelevant. Had there been one more Nazi than the sum total of the oppressed, then the Nazis would still have been wrong. Had there been a single man mistreated, scapegoated for the crimes of others, with only a single person objecting on his behalf, that person would have been right and the rest wrong.

By definition, a democracy cannot be tyrannical unless the lunatics have taken over the asylum and only those people are involved in voting in the 'democracy' you describe. — universeness

Maybe read some de Tocqueville:

https://edsitement.neh.gov/curricula/alexis-de-tocqueville-tyranny-majority

Take some time to work through your position. It's just not making sense. You are arguing that it is logically impossible for the empirical reality of a tyrannical democracy to exist. That is, you are suggesting it is impossible that the majority of people would vote to oppress a smaller number of people, as if to suggest all laws, as long as there is a 51% consensus must be just by definition. This
argument is defeated by actual history.

This is more related to our lack of authentic documentation from earlier than about 6000 years ago. — universeness

Slavery existed in the US only 150 years ago, it still exists in parts of the world today, and woman are considered chattel in parts of the world today. I'm not referencing unknown, ancient civilizations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

No democratic system can legalise slavery unless the people involved are stupid morons and I do not consider a group of stupid and moronic humans, capable of creating a good civilisation. SO — universeness

The American South did not create slavery because they were stupid.

In any event, you miss the point terribly. The point was that the role of the majority is irrelevant in determining morality.

I don't employ scapegoating in any shape or form, — universeness

Again, you miss the point terribly. You argued that Hitler was an example of a minority will over-ruling majority will, resulting in an evil that wouldn't have existed had he more concerned himself with Germany's will and not his own. My response was twofold: (1) you're factually incorrect to assert that Hitler was subjugating the majority because the subjugated (Jews among many others) were a minority, not a majority, and (2) a democracy can be tyrannical. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#:~:text=The%20tyranny%20of%20the%20majority,those%20of%20the%20minority%20factions.

That is, the will of the majority of the people can be advanced by the enslavement and even murder of a minority. That is not a hypothetical construct. It is the very history of the US.

[

I can't conceive of a human civilisation that would define rape as good and still be able to retain the label civilised. I would engage in armed revolt against such a civilisation, wouldn't you? The bizarre projection you are attempting is sensationalist and is based on a quick jump to extremity approach. Such a jump is a bit irrational. Democracy is based on subjectivism, which is fine as long as you have an educated populous, which is the socialist/humanist goal — universeness

Unfortunately egalitarianism is s fairly modern invention, meaning there was a time in our not so distant past that women were considered men's property. The same holds true for certain races. Caste systems allow subjugation as do religious systems to this day.

You are attempting to defend your subjectivist position by arguing that your moral positions are subjective but that they are universal, meaning that they so happen to be moral because of a universal consistency in human preference and thought.

The problem with your position is that it is an empirical statement and it is wrong. From nation to nation, culture to culture, time period to time period, there are fundamental distinctions in what is considered right and wrong, including the issue of rape.

What we need to say is rape is wrong, regardless of where it happens, when it happens, or which dictator says it is. That is moral realism and it demands objectivity.

Democracy can legalize slavery. It cannot make it moral. That is the point.

Hitler demonstrated evil towards the majority, and benevolence, only towards his chosen few. — universeness

The Jews were a minority. In any event, why are we counting numbers here? Are you suggesting if we scapegoated a sufficiently few for the common good, then the scapegoating was moral?

What I should have responded was "I remain skeptical of your sincerity." — T Clark

You don't annoy me. I ignore those who annoy me.

I'm sincere in my posts. Even the absurd ones are not insincere.

You're the second person today I've had to ask to respond to my argument, not to my motivation. You and Universeness are peas in a pod. — T Clark

I made no mention of your motivation. I indicated your position's similarity to Christianity and then pointed out the well known difficulties with that position, namely its inability to adequately condemn unresolvable evil.

How you arrived at your position isn't a concern of mine.

As with most (all?) philosophical positions one may advance here, they have been advanced and criticized elsewhere probably for the past 1000 years. I've done nothing but identify your position and respond in what was actually a predictable way.

I personally do define evil as a purely human measure/judgement of behaviour. — universeness

And so rape would be good if humans so defined it as good? This sounds like subjectivism and subject to the many problems associated with it.

think the most heinous evil is to truly believe that YOU are the most important object in the universe and to act 100% in accordance with that belief. — universeness

Except to the extent they might have an enlightend sense of selfishness, where they feed their narcissistic ego through apparent acts of kindness. That is to say, your focus on the psychological motivation seems less significant than focusing on the intent generally as well as the behavior.

For example, if Hitler's motivation was truly that he thought Aryan supremecy would result in a greater good for the world, he still would have been evil, even though his motivation would include advancement of his community generally, would not be narcissistic under this description, and would be just as evil.

think the idea of evil is generally not a useful one. It often leads to responses that are not effective in addressing the behavior in question. E.g. revenge rather than prevention and deterrence. "Evildoers" are human. If you want to stop them, you have to understand that. — T Clark

This is a Christian notion of evil within humanity, which relies upon an ever present love of one's enemy, turning the other cheek and viewing all as capable of salvation.

I know you didn't suggest all that with your simple comment above, but it is part of that tradition.

The counter tradition is that there is true evil for which no sympathy should be afforded.

The latter may be thought of as unnuanced, judgmental, and merciless The former naive and refusing to call a spade a spade. That is, to the extent we must understand our enemy, let us understand they are evil. It could be that simple.

Evil is to act without regard for the well being of the other. — hypericin

I include as evil self harm, not just that harm to others, including subjecting yourself to degradation or humiliation. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not create a subjective morality where it becomes acceptable for the masochist to injure others because he would enjoy receiving such pain.

If you see all of humanity, including yourself, as the ultimate end, the highest being within our world, imposing a metaphorical divine essence upon it, it becomes as evil to damage others as yourself, resulting in a duty to develop yourself to your highest potential

That being said, the worst thing a person can do is hurt a child. — T Clark

What about repeatedly jabbing a nice old lady in the ear with a pencil? Slapping a child seems like child's play compared to that.

I can arrive at some additional counter examples to your comment if you'd like.

You said the potential energy is in the spring (or at least you seemed to.). Strictly speaking, potential energy doesn't have a location. You could think of it as a sophisticated prediction. — frank

I don't understand this. If it exists nowhere, it doesn't exist.

A battery has stored energy and you can move it from one thing to the next. I get that the total energy equals the potential energy plus the kinetic energy and the amount of energy that is demanded will increase based upon the resistance, but I don't see how we can suggest the energy is being expressed or being held in a potential state at some location away from the event.

That is, when I drop a penny, the energy event isn't occurring down the street.

What part of my post is this responding to? I'm not asking this dickishly, but I don't see how that responded to it, but it could have, but I just don't see it.

The concept of "potential enrgy" really doesn't make any sense logically, but the use of it is what gives rise to the issue↪kudos points us toward, where energy is seen as an entity in itself, rather than the property of an active object. When a thing has potential energy, that energy can only be understood as the property of something else. But it's easier just to ignore the requirement of something else, allowing the energy to exist as an abstract entity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know if I agree with this. If I had a mechanical clock with a spring windup mechanism and it was fully wound, I would say the potential energy was within the clock, and in particular, within the wound spring. I wouldn't suggest it was floating within the clock or that it was somehow extractable from the spring so that it could exist separate and apart from the spring.

The idea seems to be that anything that I don't have complete control over has complete control over me. I should feel bad because I am not a god. — Srap Tasmaner

Right, and then he draws a meaningless distinction between technological control and natural control, where I am supposed to feel powerless because I rely upon the internet but not upon my lungs.

Where others feel awe at the complexity of the universe and inspiration at human ingenuity, he feels powerlessness.

Sounds like a psychological predisposition more than a philosophical problem.

It's kind of in there briefly but basically whereas natural processes are not in our control, human-made processes are the outcome of other people's decisions. Where natural processes could not have been different in this universe, human decisions can. Right now it is the case that some get to create technology and others simply support or use it. — schopenhauer1

There's obviously a difference between a human created control on my behavior and a non-human one, but why does this difference matter in terms of the pessimism it should bring me?

Why am I sadder that I must rely upon a gun that I can't create in order to kill my food as opposed to the sadness I feel because I lack the physical ability to kill my food due to my physical limitations?

In “Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking” Douglas Hofstadter claims that all human thought is analogical. I've read similar views in other places too. — T Clark

And, if accepted, it would make your distinction between art and reality, as you've acknowledged, ultimately artificial. When you draw me a picture of your room, sketching out lines and dimensions, that is as much interpretative as an elaborate oil painting of your room. That is the consequence of not starting with a set reality, but instead starting with only a subjective perception of reality.

I wonder, though, to take a line from Kant, just because we begin with truth-conditions in our thinking about meaning doesn't mean that meaning starts with truth-conditions. I think it could at least be made coherent that we begin with, as you say, metaphor and poetry and, from that, craft truth-conditions. — Moliere

To continue in the Kantian line of thinking, truth would be noumenal, so it would be unknowable. Applying this to statements, the best we can say of statements is the best we can say of perceptions, and that is that they belong to us, are our interpretations, and are influenced by who we are. We see the cat, but whether it is as it appears to us is the unknowable. When we speak of the cat, we speak in terms of our other phenomena and compare, analogize, and use as metaphor what we interpret. It's all a matter of interpretation, which is consistent with an indirect realist view of the world.

The direct realist states the cat is just what the cat appears to be. I find that equivalent to the literalist who says the sentence says just what the words say it says.

The indirect realist states the cat is whatever it is, mediated by the person's perceptions and sensory faculties. I find that equivalent to the non-literalist who says the sentence is an interpretative description influenced by worldview and comparative analysis to other perceptions.

You’ve seemed to ignore other posts I wrote about natural vs human processes so I’ll invite you to read some of those if you want. — schopenhauer1

I couldn't find them.

Because you are simply a passive user who does not get to be involved in that which you use for various utility. — schopenhauer1

That has very little to do with technology, but is just part of being part of a complex world with all sorts of specialized roles. Even if I were able to eat only what I killed, cleaned, and cooked, I still would have to accept I had nothing to do with creating the animal I was eating. On a simpler note, I woke up this morning when the sun came through my window, but I had nothing to do with the sun shining. That doesn't cause me great pessimism.

The awe one feels at the complexity of the world usually yields inspiration as opposed to the despair it yields in you.

So it is pessimistic in that unless you are of the elite who have these positions, you simply are a passive user of the technology. — schopenhauer1

I'm not following why having survival mechanisms that go beyond my understanding entail pessimism. I also don't know of anyone so elite that they fully comprehend every aspect of reality so much so that they understand why they continue to live and breathe.

Truth is

I've come to see that art, including poetry, doesn't mean anything beyond the audience's experience in seeing, reading, or hearing it. Art is an artists way of expressing an experience which makes it possible for them to share it with others. — T Clark

What distinguishes an artistic expression from your expression quoted above? What would a non-artistic expression be? If there is no distinction, then all is art.

There are hopefully some who straight away understand the pessimism in this. I’d like to engage with them. There will be others who are confused as to it’s connection with pessimism. I’d like to engage with them as well. — schopenhauer1

If you actually are feeling sadness, hopelessness, or whatever it is that pessimism brings you due to the fact that the complexities that sustain us are too difficult for your to decipher, then you need some sort of counseling. Do you just seek the kinship from those who share your peculiar form of suffering or do you want some advice for how you can emerge from your pessimism?

It's just not clear why you're telling me that you're sad. Maybe it makes you happy to tell me you're sad, or maybe your despondence has grown so great you had the need to share. I really don't know what to do with the OP other than to tell you that you're letting something that isn't any big deal be a big deal, so figure out a way to deal with. I don't know, maybe telling us here of your sadness is helpful to you and we're part of your therapy.

It brings something not in the poem, explicitly, to make sense of what is explicitly there. — Moliere

It brings it, but where was it, what did we put it in, and how was it transported? How can something be "in" the poem when the poem is sounds? How do we "make" sense? Do we build it?

You seem to be speaking in metaphor, comparing abstract thoughts to physical objects and the movement of tangible things.

I see what you're saying, but not really visually as seeing would entail.

My point is that all is metaphor and poetry.

... So when it's debt is all "Oh, the corporation is a separate person and the owner's didn't ought to be any more liable than your or I", when it's profits is all "Oh there's definitely a real thing the owners own, it's all the assets, the buildings, the activities..."

Basically, the owners own the profits, but relieve themselves of the debts. — Isaac

Let's say I want to start a lemonade stand, but I don't have any money, so you agree to lend me $1,000 on the condition that I pay you 5% of the profits of the business in perpetuity. The business is not incorporated. I then buy a bunch of supplies on personal credit and stiff my suppliers. They come after you for the debt I accrued under the theory that you own 5% of the business.

Might you tell them that you don't own any percent of the business, that there is no "business" as a separate entity to own, that your profit share agreement is a personal arrangement between you and me, and that they had no expectation that you would be personally liable because the transaction didn't involve you and all credit was extended under the expectation that only I would be liable?

That seems a reasonable response to their nonsense claim against you, right?

The point here is that those who transact with corporations do so freely and voluntarily and if they want liability to attach to another entity (whether another corporation or individual), they can work that into their agreement.

And let's keep in mind that typically you want to deal with the corporation and not an individual because they are often more creditworthy. I would rather sign a contract with the Coca-Cola Corporation than Bob in accounting, solely in his individual capacity,

Yes, I see what you're saying. I'm going to sneak in another leftist dig here though and say that this is why the corner shop is used. Its why Hanover reached straight for the restaurant owner. Because it's a non-suspect, honest, down-to-earth arrangement which can be used to justify the gross immorality of corporate profiteering. — Isaac

The problem with a significant part of your analysis is that you use the term "corporate" to mean "evil," but there's nothing particularly evil about the corporate entity. It's just a way to allow the business to operate as a separate entity and to spare the individual owners direct liability.

If we eliminated the corporate structure, while it would greatly impact the way business operates, solutions would be devised to accomplish the same goal. Loan documents could be created to allow investors to take a share in your personally owned business and indemnity agreements could be devised either through insurance policies or investors to accept liability if it should arise.

Limiting liability isn't something that is only accomplished by corporate structure and investment opportunities can be created without corporate structure. You can as much invest in my lemonade stand and have an agreed upon return structure as you can buy corporate stocks, and I can protect my personal assets should I sell poison lemonade by buying an insurance policy or paying someone to post a bond.

You can also have completely ruthless non-corporate employers who treat their employees like shit, corporations that provide their employees all sorts of benefits, and you can even have corporations that do much for the common the good, like the Cancer Society or entities like that. It's not like I become a dick manager because my boss is a corporation but I'd be wonderful if I worked for a non-corporate entity.

The point here is that you're complaining about bad business practices, not corporate structures.

This, I think, is the key point. There's nothing to own except by the fiat of government. There's no such thing as 'a business' it's a legal fiction. The question we're addressing here is 'ought there be?' I think that question precedes any question about whose property the entity then is, once reified.

As a business owner, what you own is a piece of paper saying the profits are yours. So to make a property argument that one is entitled to those profits is circular. — Isaac

The business isn't an abstraction anymore than any term is a conglomerate of various parts. I get that the business isn't simply desks, computers, people, software and the like, but that it's a bunch of stuff holistically, but it's actually a physical thing as much as a university is, a government is, or even an apple is. You can point to the stem, the peel, the seed, whatever, but where is the apple? It's the whole thing.

You can also have a business without it being a recognized legal entity. A sole proprietorship or a partnership has no special legal status. Whether it has corporate structure doesn't impact the tangibility of the entity.

The overwhelming majority of the work force are desperate for a job and would be devastated if they lost the one they had. Few are lucky enough to be shopping around for jobs. — Isaac

The unemployment rate is 3.7%, which is effectively zero when you discount those who don't want to work and those who are temporarily between jobs. Businesses are closing because of lack of workers. I'm not sure what economy you're looking at.

The overwhelming majority of corporation owners are extremely wealthy and hold their investments as part of well-hedged portfolio with little to no personal collateral tied to it. Yes, you can pick extreme examples to the contrary, but these cannot really be used to justify a status quo that benefits a very different cohort. — Isaac

I can go online right now, go to the Secretary of State website, and create for me a corporation or an LLC in a matter of minutes. That will not suddenly propel me to great wealth. According to one site, the average small business owner earns between $30,000 and $146,000 per year, with a median of $64,650. When someone tells me they're self employed, that doesn't cause me to think they must be wealthy.

Maybe, but again, in terms of share of the employment pool these are fringe cases, so in terms of just treatment of workers, they're hardly a fair target. Furthermore, as I said to Srap, if there's so much risk and so little gain, then sharing that exposure should be welcomed. — Isaac

You want to incentivize business creation so people can find jobs. It's just not the case that everyone wants to start up a business, but most go looking for a job when they need work. The reason I suspect that most mechanics, for example, don't run out and find a shop to rent and secure loans and whatnot is because they fear going broke, and they probably will. It's a safer option to go find a job, much riskier to go at it on your own.

I agree with the first half, but I don't see why high stakes gambling is the only incentive we could offer. What about low risk low reward options? — Isaac

There are plenty of those. You can put all your earnings in a CD and watch the 1.5% compound annually, fully backed by the government. You can start a lawn care business comprised of a lawnmower and rake and walk around cutting grass. Your investment was minimal and you'll make money, but won't get rich. You can also learn a trade and secure yourself a decent income, or choose a profession and make more. There are all sorts of low risk ways to make money.

How's that a loss to the owner? You're basically saying that when there's a mismatch between work done and pay due, its the worker who walks away with nothing (being owed money doesn't put food on the table). I'm sure the owner will be weeping into their leather upholstery at the shame of owing money, but seeing as it'll be the corporation which owes it, their lobster is not so much at risk that evening. — Isaac

This makes very little sense. If the owner works 100 hours in a week and doesn't sell his product, he earns nothing. That's not a theoretical construct. That occurs all the time. The owner get the profits, and profits are defined as what is left over after expenses. An employee is an expense. What this means is that the owner is paid last with the remainder. That remainder may be zero, it may be debt, it may be riches, and it may be anything in between. If he decides just not to pay his workers, he loses his employees, his business goes under, and he gets sued very quickly. He likely even gets hit with a wage and hour violation.

A corporation does not have debt immunity. It has to pay its bills just like you do. But just as I don't have to pay your debts because I am a different person than you, I (personally) don't have to pay the debts of the corporation unless I personally guaranteed it. Just like if I have no money at all, it will do you no good to sue me because I can't pay what I don't have, but if I do have assets, you will be able to collect. What that means is that my million dollar corporation stiffs you, you sue it, and you can garnish its accounts and seize its assets just as if it were a person.

It's not the wealthy corporation that dodges its debts. It's the shell corporations that start up a company, rip you off, close the corporation, open a new one, and so on. That's not a corporate law problem. That's a fraud problem, and it's really not the types of multi-national corporations you've been worrying about.

The government!!! — Deus

If you consider the government a monopoly, then we're not speaking the same language.

The term we usually use to describe a situation where you have multiple governments within the same jurisdiction, each competing for political control is "war."

The evil of such corporations is when they start dictating the terms of how much you should pay for everyday essentials through the creation of Monopolies. — Deus

The formation of a monopoly is anti-competitive and illegal even in the most capitalistic of countries, except in limited circumstances, and then they're highly regulated. In any event, what monopoly are you complaining about, your local power company?

So the narrative I'm pushing back against is the idea that owners deserve the profits because the risk they take is higher. To satisfy this narrative the facts need to be a) relatively universal - we can't justify the majority by the circumstances of a minority, and b) proportionate - we're relating profit to risk, not just any reward, but the full profits of the company. I still contest both. — Isaac

I'd push back on any narrative that suggests that implementing fairness is preferable without computing out the consequences of your plan. That is, just because it would be "fair" under a system that prizes equitable distribution of resources does not mean the system would be successful in terms of producing the actual thing you wish to produce. For example, if I want for there to be plenty of eggs for all our citizens, it does not follow that the best way to assure that is to pay the egg collectors the same as the chicken owners just because they both assume the same risk.

You also overlook the ethical value of property ownership, or perhaps you don't, but you just don't think it has any value. I would argue that it does, which means that a large part of the reason I reap larger rewards for the profits gained in my business is precisely because it's mine. That is, they are my eggs because they are my chickens.

I also don't follow why greater risk must (as a matter of ethical imperative) precede reward in order for it to be justified. The fact that I have been able to reduce my risk by being prudent and cautious and by implementing all sorts of hazard controls shouldn't result in my having to share more of my profits with others. To suggest otherwise would incentivize recklessness.

For the former - There's no class of down-and-out former business owner. A survey of homeless with the question "how did you get here" won't reveal a significant category of "I used to own a bank but it failed and I lost my initial investment". — Isaac

The homeless (if we're going to look that far down on the societal ladder) are filled with those suffering from mental illness and drug addiction. The best risk reduction measure anyone can have is an education and a strong work ethic because that will enable you to get a job. Since I would suspect most prior business owners had those qualities to some degree, the reason they are not in the soup line is because they were able to go out and get a job. But that they lost their life savings but were able to find a new job doesn't mean they didn't suffer negative consequences.

For the latter - The bank's not going to lend with the mortgaged portion of a house as collateral, so whatever the owner's personal stake, it's part of their free capital, not their tied-up capital, so the risk in putting it up is manifestly different to the risk involved in an employee committing their labour to a company (in the hopes that it's successful enough to continue employing them). An employee's labour is an investment that's tied-up, they need the return on that investment to live. An owner's capital investment is capital that's not tied-up (we know this because the bank wouldn't allow it if it was) so their investment is less of a risk. Then there's the fact that the owner can hedge their risk, they can split their free capital between many investments. The worker cannot split their labour between many investments, so again the manifest risk of their investment is higher. — Isaac

You are referencing two things here: equity and opportunity cost. Regarding equity: If you apply for a loan, the amount of equity you have is important, as is your current debt, as is your income potential as proved by historical earnings, as is your cash on hand, as is your credit rating, as are other other things depending upon their underwriting standards. If you take someone who has worked the majority of their lives, paid their bills, saved some money, and paid down their mortgage, and then they went to the bank and figured out the maximum amount they could cash out in terms of getting loans, liquidating assets, and whatever they tried to do to get money, and then they lost that in a business venture, that would be financially devastating.

In terms of opportunity cost, sure, taking one job and not another will have a computable price. That does not impose any risk because there's no ongoing obligation. If you don't like your job or find a better one, you quit and take the new one. That's not the same as having the strings attached to a financial obligation, which is what I take risk to be.

Firstly, a business has to survive only a few years for the returns to cover the owner's original investment, so they quickly come out even. It has to continually thrive just for the employee to continue to come out even. Their investment of labour is only ever rewarded with an even cover of how much that labour is worth.

Secondly, when a business is failing the first thing that happens is that it lays off staff. That may be enough to turn it around, or for the owner to recover their costs. For the employee, however, their investment in labour has proven to be a loss early on. — Isaac

This strikes me as a naive view of business, as if most succeed, as if most business owners make more than employees in other business, as if responding to downturns entails simple solutions, as if losing employees doesn't have profound consequences on sustainability, as if employees are not understood by businesses to be their life force, and so much else. I think if you stepped into the typical corner restaurant and saw how they were struggling to keep things afloat, I don't know you'd terribly want to be the owner and might find being a server a better gig.

I'm not trying to evoke sympathy for the business owner, but I do see their investment in the economy a very positive thing, and incentivizing them is what we want to do, which means offering them the opportunity to make larger profits and the possibility of making nothing or even losing money. No employee goes into a job with the understanding they may owe their employer at the end of the shift, yet that is exactly what an employer signs up knowing could well happen and he could be indebted to the employee, among others.

Even the Prince of Darkness is a mensch when he sings with his daughter.

There's a merit component not being considered. The same soccer players seem to score all the goals. Analysis shows top scorers get the most play time. In fact, going backwards, we can see they've historically gotten more play time and more goals. This corresponds to greater notoriety, resulting in additional marketing ventures and greater salaries.

If we could arrive at a way to regulate access to game time, we'd cure this disparity.

Of course that access to game time might have to do with player quality and not just random unfairness.

Why would I increase access to money (or play time) for those who can't play the game very well?

Yeah, that's true. I think the 'small business' model is a bit different. It still seems that bankruptcy laws protect the small business owner from risk in the same way though. It's not like they're putting their homes up as collateral. The difference is that if the business fails they too probably lose their job. But that still gives them equal risk to their employees, but higher gains. Do bankruptcy laws work differently in the US? There seems to be a lot of presumption about personal financial risk for the small business owner, but that's just not really the case here. — Isaac

The debt of the corporation theoretically will not pass to the owner, but the risk to the owner remains substantially higher than then the employee because the owner had a capital investment in the corporation the employee did not. That the owners risk is limited to his initial investment amount doesn't mean he has minimal risk. Often owners invest their life savings into their businesses.

I said "theoretically" above because gaining access to capital is often going to require you offer a personal guarantee backed by your assets. It's not like a bank is going to loan your 5 day old corporation with no credit history or assets any money, even if federal regulations permitted it.

In your example above, it's not the bankruptcy laws offering the limitations on liabilities, but it's the corporate structure that creates the business as a separate entity and that shields the investors.

It as if there were something shameful about being wrong, which is ridiculous in any context, let alone philosophy discussion. — hypericin

I'll get started with the mea culpa:

You don't need a far-fetched thought experiment to get your answer. Just look at the world. People leave places where they are suffering from starvation, oppression and poverty to go to places they think will be better all the time. For examples see the US's southern border, the border between Russia and Kazakhstan, and the Mediterranean Sea between northern Africa and Europe. — T Clark

Except in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue and in 1969 Armstrong took a giant step for mankind, and then he sang "What a Wonderful World" and then he won the Tour de France and then the whole doping thing.

Back from my ADD diversion, what I'm getting at is that there is a correlation between advanced civilizations, prosperity, and a desire to explore the unknown. Not all exploration is motivated by a desire to escape, but some by curiosity, which killed the cat, which brought in the possum, which might have been the McDog.

That's the obvious profit-maximizing solution. Screw mass transit! Can't make much money on that. — Bitter Crank

If the workers controlled all production in a Marxist utopia, why should we expect they would choose to advance mass transit over personal cars?

It seems the real problem is that people when left to their own devices will tend toward satisfying their immediate desires with less regard for long range consequences. The solution isn't one economic system over another, but just a more reasoned and deliberate populace. I'd agree with that, but not just so that I could have better transportation solutions, but so I can also have less crime, less unwanted pregnancy, less drug usage, and less of pretty much every other problem in our society.

We just need smarter and more tempered people. It's my Swedish Theory, which basically holds that it doesn't matter what system you have in place as long as Swedes are running it, at which time crime will drop, happiness will increase, and everyone will be beautiful.

I agree with much of what you say, but I don't think Tzeentch's position requires that we be completely ruled by our nature. I think it would have to mean that our true self, our soul, comes from somewhere outside of either nature or nurture. — T Clark

The problem then comes from statements like "being true to yourself," as if your soul is a certain way, that you were made a certain way, which would continue to demand that you be controlled by the nature of your soul. I'm not sure why it matters if by "nature" we mean genetic composition or soul.

That is, if I have a Hanover soul, I gotta be Hanoveresque, which means I can't be T Clarkesque. If I have a male soul, I have to be a male. I don't see where this give me more freedom.

In terms of identity men and women or trans do not exist. Those terms are societal shorthand - useful tools to make communicating a bit easier. But all that exists are unique individuals. The second the individual starts to accept these generalizations as actually defining them, the soul loses its wings. — Tzeentch

Radical freedom, where can you be whatever you want to be as long as you free your mind from external constraints, is an interesting notion, but it's more of an aspirational concept than something that really exists. Even in your metaphorical language ("the soul loses its wings"), you allude to obvious limitations. No matter how much I wish to cast aside the external restraints of my nature and nurture, I won't be able to fly (as in literally fly).

The problem with freedom is that it is a pretty slippery concept of questionable metaphysical construct. What I mean is that there must be a driver that determines why you choose A over B, and if you've discounted your genetic composition and you've discounted your environment as being causative of that decision, then what is left? Do you mean to say that your soul, acting alone, based upon its nature, decided without constraint? Are you not then really just arguing that nature (as opposed to nurture) made you act as you did, meaning, basically, "you were born that way."

The transgender movement is the counterculture reaction to this, and as with anything our decadent society comes up with, it's equally extreme and problematic, and devoid of all nuance. — Tzeentch

Biology is destiny for those who do not develop the capacity to understand and control their biological makeup and instinctual and subconscoius drives. As Plato argues, the reasoning faculty of man should be in firm control over the temperamental and desiring parts of the mind. — Tzeentch

These quotes strike me as a radical free choice position, suggesting we choose our gender, as opposed to our being born with a gender opposite our biology.

Your position doesn't remind me as much of Plato as it does Sarte. https://www.litcharts.com/lit/existentialism-is-a-humanism/themes/radical-freedom-choice-and-responsibility#:~:text=Based%20on%20Sartre's%20argument%20that,their%20lives%20as%20a%20whole.

There is no correlation between reproductive organs/chromosomes/hormones and gender identity. Gender identity is a personal/psychological construct. — Susu

There absolutely is a correlation between behaviors and identity, so much so that if you listed a person's behaviors I could predict their gender identity with a very high statistical probability. What you mean perhaps is that biology is not causative of gender identity, which is probably partially true, but such is a scientific, not philosophical question. That is, to what extent do hormones cause typically feminine behavior? I don't know, but probably to some degree. It is undeniable that hormone changes affect behavior and personality.

There's really no hard line between a man and a woman, which is why I decided non binary is the best pick for me. — Susu

This is a linguistic issue. The defining line between any two categories is always vague due to definitions varying upon context and usage. The line between cups and bowls is equally vague, for example.

And none of this suggests I have any objection to your personal situation or that I think you ought conform to a standard you're uncomfortable with. I'm not in favor of interfering in another's well being, but it is the case that most do behave in stereotypical ways, and it's likely true that some of that behavior is genetically informed.

So I knew this girl long ago, and I clicked with her in what I thought a special way, but she was off the chart borderline and the mood swings from love to hate so sharp and wild. I was forever disappointed that I could never convince her I meant no harm, but she couldn't help but to project her insecurities upon me, reading malice where there was nothing but kindness.

I let her go because I brought her such unintended pain and me such grief at her suffering. I imagine she's somewhere alone, but only because her view of reality was skewed by childhood trauma, not because the world still rejects her.

This song pleads my case, but it'd have fallen on damaged ears had I sent it way back when.

I heard this long after she came and went, but instantly saw her in these words.