I recently learned that if I want my 20 year old washing machine to work, I ought change out the coupler between the motor and the drum because it's worn out. Do you see that as an ethical issue? — frank

Yep.

Cool. I committed the naturalistic fallacy.

Like most who glanced at this thread, you remain in the ditches instead of looking at the horizon.

To all who actually did mention the importance of treating others as you want to be treated, thanks.

How free should a free market be? Are child labor laws to be abolished? Are environmental regulations an undue burden on a free market?

A growing danger today is mono-culture. Large multi-national conglomerates increasingly determine what we have access to in every aspect of our lives.

The problem is not government interference in what should be a free market but rather that powerful corporate entities exert a tremendous influence on government.

How free should a free market be? Are child labor laws to be abolished? Are environmental regulations an undue burden on a free market? — Fooloso4

Do you think we should leave child labor illegal? Why?

China traded the health of their people for its present economic position. And that position translates to political and cultural influence. Should China not have made that trade? Why not?

growing danger today is mono-culture. Large multi-national conglomerates increasingly determine what we have access to in every aspect of our lives. — Fooloso4

Is that because of diminished enforcement of anti-trust laws? Or because of of the vast laissez faire economy that is the government-less global economy?

Do you think we should leave child labor illegal? Why? — frank

We should allow slave labor too, sweat shop type relationships, indentured servitude, no workers rights, and we should, like the Chinese eliminate freedom of speech. It has also worked for the Chinese to occasionally violently put down dissent, restrict freedom of religion, eliminate rights to privacy. We should encourage much more familial control over children, restrict the number of children parents are allowed to have and have governmental control of the internet. Morals, rights, individuality, freedom matter nothing in the face of the most rapid economic growth China has achieved. We can't annex Tibet violently, but perhaps Canada.

Do you think we should leave child labor illegal? Why? — frank

Of course the laws should be kept in place. Children need to be protected and educated.

China traded the health of their people for its present economic position. And that position translates to political and cultural influence. Should China not have made that trade? Why not? — frank

What does this have to do with laissez faire?

Is that because of diminished enforcement of anti-trust laws? Or because of of the vast laissez faire economy that is the government-less global economy? — frank

In part it has to do with diminished enforcement of anti-trust laws, but technological advances in the information sector present challenges to anti-trust laws. We do not, for example, want to support competition to Google simply for the sake of competition.

The global economy is laissez faire.

Of course the laws should be kept in place. Children need to be protected and educated. — Fooloso4

Child labor is illegal in the US because of a movement fueled mainly by women: specifically: mothers. Their argument was exactly as you stated.

What is the foundation of this argument? IOW, what is its persuasive force? Logic? Observation? Love?

If you don't mind, could we dwell on this question for just a second?

What is the foundation of this argument? — frank

Does it need a foundation? Does it need an argument to be persuasive. The only persuasion necessary was the persuasive force of penalty for those who did not comply with the law. If one is aware of the abuses then no argument is needed unless one thinks that it is necessary to provide an argument for why children should not be abused.

If you recall, the main obstacle to child labor law was that individual states couldn't outlaw it without crippling their own economies relative to those who didn't outlaw it.

Outlawing it required persuading the federal government to intervene, outlawing it for every state.

An argument was required, and it was a highly emotional one.

Do you see how much you're taking for granted in saying that no persuasion is required?

You asked:

Do you think we should leave child labor illegal? Why? — frank

My answer was in response to that, not the historical situation.

My answer was in response to that, not the historical situation. — Fooloso4

Is it that you see it as wasted time to examine your bias in favor of child labor laws?

If so, fair enough. Thanks for the discussion.

What does my "bias" have to do with the economic, political, and judicial realities of the time? You asked me about one thing but then jumped to another. You ignored what I said. Perhaps you did not understand it.

There are ethical issues, and I consider this one of them, where asking for foundations and arguments are misguided. Empathy and regard for the well-being of others does not rest on theoretical or argumentative foundations. I do not care because I have been persuaded to care. I do not care because ... I care.

There are ethical issues, and I consider this one of them, where asking for foundations and arguments are misguided. Empathy and regard for the well-being of others does not rest on theoretical or argumentative foundations. I do not care because I have been persuaded to care. I do not care because ... I care. — Fooloso4

I pursued your interest in child labor laws because I wanted you to say this: that what's wrong with social Darwinism is that it's immoral. It sees people as nothing more than smart rats whose pain is ultimately of no significance. It sees people purely objectively instead of morally, which, as Sartre pointed out, means treating people as subjects.

I agree with you that there is no logical or empirical foundation for morality. But if the morally sensitive don't appeal to others to find that moral sense within themselves, the attraction of social Darwinism is there in the environment, in some ways built into our present worldview.

So in regard to child labor, we're poor at enforcing the laws in regard to immigrants. Isn't something more than just my caring, or your caring needed to change that?

I pursued your interest in child labor laws because I wanted you to say this: that what's wrong with social Darwinism is that it's immoral. — frank

What's wrong with social Darwinism is that it is an ill-conceived and misguided concept. But yes, it attempts to defend immorality or at least moral indifference.

So in regard to child labor, we're poor at enforcing the laws in regard to immigrants. Isn't something more than just my caring, or your caring needed to change that? — frank

Yes, change requires action. What course of action should be taken to effectively address the problem is not something I think I am qualified to address. I am not even aware of violations of child labor laws with immigrants.

What's wrong with social Darwinism is that it is an ill-conceived and misguided concept. — Fooloso4

Unfortunately this isn't entirely true. I've discussed in this thread some of what it gets right. That makes its moral blind spot all the more dangerous.

What course of action should be taken to effectively address the problem is not something I think I am qualified to address. I — Fooloso4

I don't think you're alone in that. We enjoy past achievements which were mostly the work of Christian activists. Christianity has disintegrated substantially since slavery and child labor were outlawed.

Maybe some future rise of social Darwinism will spark the kind of reflection I've been looking for in this thread.

Ah - see the vision splendid; believe the myth.

To all who actually did mention the importance of treating others as you want to be treated, thanks. — frank

I'd go along with Nussbaum's approach. Indeed it has the same ethical goal as laissez faire, so far as that is allowing people to achieve what they are capable of.

What's wrong with social Darwinism is that it is an ill-conceived and misguided concept.
— Fooloso4

Unfortunately this isn't entirely true. — frank

There is nothing Darwinian about it, except the name and a misunderstanding of evolution. I am not interested in arguing the point. Perhaps some other time.

go along with Nussbaum's approach — Banno

Thanks. I'll look into it. I don't favor laissez faire. I wanted to examine a contemporary approach to the issue.

Yeah, suspected so. I need more coffee so i can follow what's going on.

Must start a thread on Nussbaum.

Must start a thread on Nussbaum. — Banno

That would be awesome! Thanks.

Child labor is illegal in the US because of a movement fueled mainly by women: specifically: mothers. Their argument was exactly as you stated.

What is the foundation of this argument? IOW, what is its persuasive force? Logic? Observation? Love?
— frank

I may have missed it but your argument seems to be that since China has had great economic growth and they allow child labor, we should. As I pointed out in the post you ignored above, they also allow do all sorts of things and have centralized powers to influence the economy that do not fit with democracy. Should we allow for these also`?

The main reasons to strictly regulate chlild labor is that
children are not ready to defend themselves against workplace abuse and are much more easily manipulated
child labor interferes with children's education
child labor was used in periods in history when children were seen as small adults, there was a great deal of ignorance about developmental stages and the needs of children which are not the same as adults. They need time to play, for example, to develop well.
In China it is under 10% of the children who labor.
Child labor there is associated with higher school drop out rates.

And who cares what the sex of the people arguing against child labor was? That it was the people who spent the most time with developing children and know the most about them should only be seen as positive, if anything.

And if you think that it was mainly women who decided that child labor should be restricted, you have a very poor understand of women's power at that point in human history. They'd had the vote only a few years, legislators and judges were nearly all male.

It's as if a wave of irrational women overpowered the primarily male government.

That sure smelled of sexism on your part.

Laissez faire promotes social strength by rewarding the strong and punishing the weak

Lol this post. At best, like all Ayn Rand's work, that statement is merely a tautology.

I agree that child labor is immoral. I've kind of moved on from this topic now.

Laissez faire means the government should not interfere in the economy. It doesn't advise people not to cooperate. — frank

Treating the "economy" as a natural condition is problematic. The argument against planning and control of markets has been made by such as Hayek and Milton. They argue that withdrawal of control serves social ends such as the expansion of prosperity and the decrease of tyranny. Whatever one thinks about those policies as means to their stated ends, they both assume that one needs to overcome "natural" reactions to make them effective in terms of outcomes. They embraced the values of the progressive citizen as articulated by their interlocutors but claimed those interlocutors were defeating themselves through attempts to directly create certain conditions.

Introducing the ideas of Social Darwinism into the discussion is a matter of offering too much and too little at the same time.

Those ideas are too much in the way they frame the "Letting it play out" argument of economists to be some kind of acceptance of a natural order. Hayek is closer in spirit to Hobbes than Rousseau regarding the social contract. Hobbes' way to stop the "natural" war between individuals is to agree to an order that binds them together. Rousseau sees nature as something order screwed up. In this battlefield of differing presuppositions, the introduction of evolution is a step back from the fray. Being a species is relationship to other species. The existential crisis of being whatever form of life you happen to be is no longer confined to the struggle within a kind you happen to be suffering but is connected to whatever Life is and the other stuff that is alive.

That last observation shows how the idea of Social Darwinism is too little for the issue under discussion. The biggest fish in the sea, if one is to look at our existence from the point of view of evolutionary development, is Ecology. The "survival of the fittest" idea only makes sense in a region where the "selection" is not a search for the "fit" but an acceptance that the balancing of life forms is well beyond the matter of what we highly prize. The evolutionary perspective calls for humility in the way Spinoza called for when asked to decipher the ends of the Creator.

"The government which governs least, governs best."

Do you know where this statement comes from and what it originally meant?

Do I get a cookie if I respond correctly?
Fuck that.

Do I get a cookie if I respond correctly?
Fuck that. — Valentinus

I wasn't trying to be offensive. If you were familiar with that reference it would have saved me some tying on my phone.

I am familiar with the Thoreau references and the uncertainty over whether he is the original author and what not.

How that might relate to my comment I will leave to you to clarify.

"The government which governs least, governs best."

Do you know where this statement comes from and what it originally meant? — frank

The proper question is where do you, frank, think the statement comes from and what do you think it means. How you answer the first question should determine how you answer the second.