Im confused, what does this have to do with Anti-natalism? — DingoJones
Anyway, arent you essentially asking if the guidelines that are in place are ethical? In your example the guidelines are all being followed, so its only if you think that those guidelines are ethically inadequate that there would be an ethical breech. — DingoJones
There. If you want to make a decision on ethics, go ahead, but don't hold anyone else to it, because one person's ethic is another person's evil. — god must be atheist
I dont understand the conundrum. — DingoJones
If you can't reason, you ought not to fight for it. But you reasoned it well. You don't need ethics. Just present your reasons. — god must be atheist
What are reasons without values behind them in terms of how people act towards each other? — schopenhauer1
Ethics are subjective values, and as such, they are not useful for an argument. If you want to say "It saves lives, or has a better chance to save lives", that's a good value, and has nothing to do with ethics, does it now. — god must be atheist
If you want to say "It saves lives, or has a better chance to save lives", that's a good value, and has nothing to do with ethics, does it now. — god must be atheist
If the employer makes the employees come to work because it's less than 10 people, and technically there is no shelter-in-place in effect (or perhaps even if there is it's left up to the employers themselves) would the business be in ethical boundaries in the time of coronavirus?
ethical or not would be in reference to any risk incurred by the employees. We could decide on using some sort of deontological system, but legislative decisions seem to be more consequentialist, plus consequentialist arguments seem to make more sense to the masses and thus using said system in our discussion will make our discussion the most informative and discernible. I will bring up some deontological points later if requested, but for now I'll just stick with a consequential view. — WatchingRook
Since it is comprised of human beings who are at least potentially rational this is really a given but I feel it should be mentioned, since anything not capable of ethical consideration can't be held to a moral standard. — WatchingRook
Like many people in this situation we don't know how great the risk is of contraction, all we know is that no one currently working shows symptoms of being ill/infected. — WatchingRook
. Employees can't leave without incurring some significant personal risk. Since it is hard to get employment at least in the current environment, becoming unemployed would mean a loss of income and a threat to someone's livelihood since they would not be able to meet personal expenses. It could be argued that this is not realistic since people could "tighten their belts" so to speak, but having to move out of wherever one currently lives would incur a yet higher risk of transmission so we shall regard losing one's current living situation as a non-option. — WatchingRook
Since we don't know that everyone in the facility is healthy, we can't rightfully assume that there is no risk, so to make employees work in high-transmission conditions would be to force them to incur some risk, which would make it unethical. This fact derives from the arbitrariness of having to work on-location, since the initial discussion assumes that the job could be done at home. The risk here is different from any other risk assumption expected of employees since in professions of high risk employers must try to offset the risks of the job not only with pay, but also with safety measures. Since the risk here is strictly human contact, that itself is forcing employees to assume a risk which for assumption 5 they are not able to avoid. — WatchingRook
Of course, the objection could be made that since are rational beings they should make the decision of whether to work for a company making them assume such risks at all, but this consideration becomes moot on consideration of assumption 5. — WatchingRook
But the employer has overhead: office space, equipment, and other costs. So I can understand why he'd want his employees to work there.
The risk is higher I suppose, but I think the employer is within his ethical boundaries by the fact that requiring his employees to come to work doesn't necessarily lead to their infection. — NOS4A2
Interesting take, though if there is a risk doesn't an employer need to consider the ramifications of the thing he is risking as well? Just because things do not follow with necessity doesn't mean that people aren't supposed to consider them. Someone might not necessarily be mad if I drink their soda, but they might. So I don't. By analogy, the business can say that their employees aren't necessarily going to get sick because of what the company tells them to do, but they still might. And if that is the case, to ignore the risk that the company is putting them at would be an ethical failing, wouldn't it?
I don't think his decisions are necessarily unethical, but they do place a higher burden of responsibility on the employees to protect themselves. — NOS4A2
It doesn't necessarily lead to their infection, but the employer knows that there is a higher risk of contracting the infection by being in the physical presence of others. Why wouldn't that be taken as more important than overhead and such? Is health less important than overhead? Also, what responsibility does the manager have to the greater society? Presumably, less physical space with others would be less chance for others to contract and spread the virus to society at large- including to people who are most vulnerable to the disease.
But I do not think we can blame the employer here unless he himself infects others with the virus. — NOS4A2
Rather, wouldn't it be unethical for an employee to go into a crowded workplace with an infectious virus? — NOS4A2
I actually don't see it that way. They may be technically following the guidelines, but they are breaking the spirit of the intent. In other words, this is a non-essential business that can work remotely. Also, this is pertaining to ethics. Is it ethical to enable people to work in close quarters (or closer quarters than they would) when almost all medical and government advice to the public is to work remotely if you can? — schopenhauer1
Some people would say they are not being unethical. They aren't breaking any rules. — schopenhauer1
I don't think we can say the employer makes people come to work, as if pointing a gun at their head. They certainly risk losing their employment if they do not show up. — NOS4A2
If you don't mind me asking, what are the points of contention? I thought I laid my case out fairly well, and if you object I really would like to hear why.
Partly since reason dictates for my reasoning to be incorrect there must be an issue of form or one of my premises isn't true.
I'm not nuts about the parameters you set up for this...they seem contrived. But I see "the spirit" of what you are after...and I agree. The ethical thing for every employer to do...is to follow the spirit of any laws enacted...rather than be rigid. — Frank Apisa
My wife simply went in and asked her boss what the "contingency plans" were for the shop...and after he beat around the bush for a while...she went for the jugular. "I'm a few months away from 65," she said. — Frank Apisa
Two...I work a few days a week as a starter at a golf course. Golf courses are hardly essential...but much better they stay open. Old people need exercise...and golf often is the only exercise some get. I have to move golf carts in and out...and the steering wheels are a problem...but with gloves and sanitizer spray, it should work out okay. We are opening late (not until early April) so the may be consiidering a full closure. It is a county course...and almost the entire non-essential country operation is totally down. — Frank Apisa
Three...I've got a GREAT picture of our three cats doing social distancing but I just do not know how to post a picture from my computer. I have the picture at Flickr, but it is too goddam small. — Frank Apisa
Ok, let's take the example.Darn, I'm surprised this isn't getting any attention being this is probably one of the most relevant topics, if you are from a country implementing social distancing... — schopenhauer1
There can be a cranky individual of a boss of a small company that does this, but I think it's rare. Likely it's that the company really doesn't have the simple tools to work from home even if the work is done by computer at the workplace. Having the ability connect to the workplace system from outside is an investment, you know. So if the accounting is done with a floppy disc computer back from the 1990's, because who gives a sh*t about accounting otherwise that it's done...In the midst of the Corona crisis, the business does not allow workers to work remotely, even though the functions of the job can be done from home. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.