Exploitation of Forcing Work on Others

schopenhauer1

One of Marx's main points was that the working class was being exploited for their labor.

I would like to generalize this more than just to a certain class of people. Rather, I would like to generalize this to humanity. Is putting people into a situation where they have to produce in order to survive, its own exploitation of people? If not, why not? No one chose that the initial conditions of how life works (like producing something for someone to survive), yet we assume that it is good that people must endure. Why? How is this not immoral/evil and at the least exploitative of people?

Marx just wasn't thinking deep enough. He was against some exploitation when it came to classes, but not as being born into the human condition as a whole. Why is the assumption that being born at all to produce anything considered "good" for that person? Who is the one that gets to decide that? Why is another person getting to decide that on behalf of someone else?

The conundrum comes in when you try to answer these questions positively in any way. If you say we MUST assume production of some kind is a thing that is good and necessary, you have already assumed the consequent and jumped over the justification. You WANT an outcome from people (production) and you are willing to force people's hand (exploit them) to get it. Yet, this itself is its own exploitation. WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! hahahahaha

If you agree with Marx on classes, why not on this? If you just want to do the bad argument that we must have people so that we KNOW the conditions of exploitation.. then why does that matter? No person. No exploitation. Period. Any answer otherwise, is just trying to force the hand of what YOU want to see from society, and consequently, what people must do to maintain that society. Why is this the default?

baker

Why is this the default? — schopenhauer1

The default (whatever it is) must be and is beyond comprehension, beyond human power to control. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the default.

schopenhauer1

The default (whatever it is) must be and is beyond comprehension, beyond human power to control. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the default. — baker

I meant the default point of view, not that this is completely unchangeable or impossible.

BitconnectCarlos

No one chose that the initial conditions of how life works (like producing something for someone to survive), yet we assume that it is good that people must endure. Why? How is this not immoral/evil and at the least exploitative of people? — schopenhauer1

Because "being" - including human "being" - being good is a fundamental premise of western/Judeo-Christian society that takes it root in the bible.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”

But if you want to scratch that and question the justice in birthing people who will inevitably have to deal with the annoyance of walking to the bathroom or post-masturbation fatigue then be my guest.

javi2541997

but not as being born into the human condition as a whole. Why is the assumption that being born at all to produce anything considered "good" for that person? Who is the one that gets to decide that? Why is another person getting to decide that on behalf of someone else? — schopenhauer1

I guess there are two factors here we have to point out:

1. Oligarchy implanted by the own market. If a random company with 1 Billion euros wants to exploit and abuse others for just their own interest we have to assume it even if this company has as object the things we cannot live without like tech and this stuff... money wins in our system. Have we discovered something different rather than capitalism? NO why literally are we making them even richer despite the fact we know they are abusing us? I don’t know it is curious

2. Some State's weak public affairs. Sadly, there are countries why can only survive because of them. For example, Birmania and other countries with child labour. It is abusive but somehow those States win profit with these politics. They do not care if some kids die of pollution if at least Adidas or Nike put millions of dollars/euros when their coin value is trash.

Karl Marx and his economical philosophy doesn’t not get effect because by nature humans tend to get benefit laying down others

schopenhauer1

Go cry into a soft pillow, so tired of hearing you do it here. — DingoJones

But if you want to scratch that and question the justice in birthing people who will inevitably have to deal with the annoyance of walking to the bathroom or post-masturbation fatigue then be my guest. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah two greats philosophizing at the highest level.

You see, you are proving my point. You just assume the already-in-place default, and because it is the default, you assume you don't need any justification. Just sarcasm-as-philosophy because it's t0o hard for you to actually find one. But hey, it's okay. I like when people prove my point. It means, I'm actually pretty accurate in my evaluation here.

What have been left off the list below are the following persuasive techniques commonly used to influence others and to cause errors in reasoning: apple polishing, using propaganda techniques, ridiculing, being sarcastic, selecting terms with strong negative or positive associations, using innuendo, and weasling. All of the techniques are worth knowing about if one wants to reason well. — https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

James Riley

When reading the OP, I could not help but to think of Mother Nature. My mind did not run to "people on people" or any evil that might be seen arising from exploration of each other. Rather, it seems that Nature imposed upon us, and every other living thing, long before we stood upright, the need to produce. When you say "no one chose" then I guess yes, no "one" chose if by "one" you mean people.

However, Nature chose. You don't produce, you die, and in death you will produce for that which consumes you. The fact that we may likewise impose upon each other to produce is, well, natural. I don't see evil in it. And to resist that imposition is also natural.

"Enlightened self-interest" is supposed to check any evil, just as it does in Nature. Apparently, to date anyway, bread and circuses have stayed the hand of lady razor. But she, or Nature, will catch up when self-interest is no longer enlightened enough to protect itself.

We fancy ourselves above Nature. Well then, we must enlighten ourselves, or Nature will do it for us.

BitconnectCarlos

↪schopenhauer1

You just assume the already-in-place default, and because it is the default, you assume you don't need any justification. — schopenhauer1

Hey man, you don't need to believe what I'm saying here and I'm not even sure that I do. Sure, you can question the grounding of it, just as I or anyone can question the grounding of your idea that suffering ought to be completely eliminated in all its forms.

When it comes to justification there's always a point where the justification needs to end and it just comes down to a statement.

So what is suffering bad? Why does all suffering need to be eliminated in all of its forms?

schopenhauer1

So what is suffering bad? Why does all suffering need to be eliminated in all of its forms? — BitconnectCarlos

Let's rephrase it then to make it less "just because". So yes, I can say, causing negative states for others, is bad as an axiom.. Let's make it more interesting...

Is it unjust to cause negative states to others when there is no mitigating factors (to make that person better, to get them to a better place.. obviously they don't exist to need a better place).

Also, I will say there is value in what you said here:

Because "being" - including human "being" - being good is a fundamental premise of western/Judeo-Christian society that takes it root in the bible.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” — BitconnectCarlos

I think it's not just Judeo-Christian, but a sort of attitude most people generally hold. I can see how "humanity no longer exists" can make people cry as an aesthetically sad thing to think about. But weighing someone's sadness over this aesthetic and actually making someone exist who will then suffer and be forced to work, that is a different thing.. One is just a sad thought someone has and one actually involves negative states for someone else.

schopenhauer1

↪javi2541997

So interesting points.. and I think this might be more appropriate for the other thread on Marx here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10559/does-labor-really-create-all-wealth

However, my question is basically..

Is procreating knowing that the people born will have to labor-to-survive its own exploitation of people, because we are knowingly forcing them into an unavoidable situation?

Perhaps then exploitation must involve alternatives. So if it is forcing people in a situation which is never avoidable, it cannot be considered exploitation. But why? It is technically unavoidable in one sense, of never starting it for someone else. I'll also pose this to @BitconnectCarlos

From Google:
Exploitation- the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

schopenhauer1

However, Nature chose. You don't produce, you die, and in death you will produce for that which consumes you. The fact that we may likewise impose upon each other to produce is, well, natural. I don't see evil in it. And to resist that imposition is also natural.

"Enlightened self-interest" is supposed to check any evil, just as it does in Nature. Apparently, to date anyway, bread and circuses have stayed the hand of lady razor. But she, or Nature, will catch up when self-interest is no longer enlightened enough to protect itself.

We fancy ourselves above Nature. Well then, we must enlighten ourselves, or Nature will do it for us. — James Riley

So this is a sort of argument-from-nature. Some may call this the naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature fallacy. So your main point seems to be that we can't help but expect others to work-to-produce so that we ourselves can survive. Right, I understand that is what we do, and must do to continue the species. We form organizations, hierarchies, and habits so that people don't get out of line and prevent unproductive outcomes from people. But is this whole process itself exploitative? It is not inevitable. You have at least ONE choice as a person who can freely choose. You can choose to NOT put other people in this situation of having to produce to survive in the first place. Is that not true?

javi2541997

↪schopenhauer1

I understand and respect your points because are solid. Nevertheless, the following phrase is so interesting to point out despite you found it in Google:

Exploitation- the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. — schopenhauer1

How can we consider someone is exploiting other? I mean, economically concept. Do you consider earning just 400 € per month working 6 days as abusive? Of course it is but these people is in a dilemma is this sitthy job or sleeping in the streets. This is the world that democracy created.

BitconnectCarlos

↪schopenhauer1

I think it's not just Judeo-Christian, but a sort of attitude most people generally hold. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, true. The root is Judeo-Christian, but society just largely takes it for granted today and if you ask people why they hold that view a lot of them won't know. Our foundations as a culture are J-C but this is slowly changing and the base is being eroded. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it certainly can be.

It is unjust to cause negative states to others when there is no mitigating factors (to make that person better, to get them to a better place.. obviously they don't exist to need a better place). — schopenhauer1

Where is this coming from? Why are you so opposed to harm? Or is it just unnecessary harm? Who are you to decide what is necessary and what is not? Maybe I just randomly beat up a man on the street but that man ends up turning around his life and becomes a better father and man.

Your insistence that all harm ought to be eliminated is nothing more than a personal psychological quirk that you're seeking to universalize.

This is probably going to be my last post on the subject; we've gone over this before and tbh I just have better things to do with my time. Maybe try focus on finding meaning in your own life rather than railing against any possible perceived deficit in the nature of life itself. Sorry, but this just isn't worth my time - but I would respond to any points you have in regard to my first stanza about the Judeo-Christian roots of US/western culture.

schopenhauer1

Yeah, true. The root is Judeo-Christian, but society just largely takes it for granted today and if you ask people why they hold that view a lot of them won't know. Our foundations as a culture are J-C but this is slowly changing and the base is being eroded. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it certainly can be. — BitconnectCarlos

I think the Judeo-Christian idea of life being good, and this needs to be procreated, is pretty much the typical stance in any society. Even Buddhist societies with life being suffering don't usually condemn procreation. So I think it is just the typical stance embodied in a myth.

Where is this coming from? Why are you so opposed to harm? Or is it just unnecessary harm? Who are you to decide what is necessary and what is not? Maybe I just randomly beat up a man on the street but that man ends up turning around his life and becomes a better father and man. — BitconnectCarlos

Here's the thing, the outcome in regards to another person if you follow my view, leads to no other person dealing with my preferences. If they followed your view, someone will be dealing with negative consequences.

It just seems to me almost in any other situation, people would view creating unnecessary harm on someone else's behalf is unjust or unfair. But somehow because it is perceived as foundational, it must not be unjust or unfair in this case.

I am also bringing up the idea of exploitation in terms of people forced into labor. Why is this not an issue? In any other case where someone is forced into a situation when not necessary, this would be unjust. However, why does generalizing this concept to life itself rather than a particular circumstance get an exemption? What about the generalization makes it "too general"? There really doesn't seem to be a good answer for forcing in a particular instance unnecessary and the more general instance of bringing into life itself.

Your insistence that all harm ought to be eliminated is nothing more than a personal psychological quirk that you're seeking to universalize. — BitconnectCarlos

What's funny is people who procreate are doing the EXACT SAME THING, except the result of my "quirk" is NO PERSON HARMED. The result of others' is SOME PERSON HARMED.. So though I know you think the argument can be ended by just dismissing it, the glaring asymmetry is still there whether you scoff and ignore it or not. That doesn't hurt the argument either way whether you want to be dismissive or not.

Sorry, but this just isn't worth my time - but I would respond to any points you have in regard to my first stanza about the Judeo-Christian roots of US/western culture. — BitconnectCarlos

What about this would you want to discuss?

Aryamoy Mitra

↪schopenhauer1

Marx just wasn't thinking deep enough. He was against some exploitation when it came to classes, but not as being born into the human condition as a whole. Why is the assumption that being born at all to produce anything considered "good" for that person? Who is the one that gets to decide that? Why is another person getting to decide that on behalf of someone else? — schopenhauer1

I concur, with regards to the generality. Most Existentialist doctrines, as far as I've witnessed, readily concede to the tragic ramifications of being immersed into the human condition; you can't usurp hierarchies that are intractable, for example. Independent agency, insofar as working conditions/and or welfare are concerned, is a scarce gem of liberty. Exploitative elements are profoundly ingrained into the underlying fabrics of human society; whether remediating those vices is best undertaken with milder variants of Capitalism, Economic Anarchism or Marxism - is a far more contentious bridge to traverse (naturally).

If you agree with Marx on classes, why not on this? If you just want to do the bad argument that we must have people so that we KNOW the conditions of exploitation.. then why does that matter? No person. No exploitation. Period. Any answer otherwise, is just trying to force the hand of what YOU want to see from society, and consequently, what people must do to maintain that society. Why is this the default? — schopenhauer1

Does this not lend itself, to an anti-natalist stance? Not all individuals zealously opposed to exploitation, will prefer a cessation of all births, over being exploited in a constrained fashion. Ascribing a greater significance to life may be the overarching default, since its intrinsic value (to Judeo-Christian ideals and/or other codified monotheisms) overshadows any societal sacrifices that it might introduce (indeed, at the cost of individual liberty, and one's freedom from suffering). Is it ideal? No - almost certainly not.
It does, however, bear a meaningful rationalization to it (in reiteration - synchronous with JC ideals, as opposed to my own beliefs).

Life, with all its unrelenting exploitation, is a catastrophe; even a catastrophe, however - when ameliorated, is preferable to inexistence. Kierkegaard instituted several analogous ideas, if I'm not mistaken.

Personally, I'm apathetic on the matter - on this front, nonetheless, your perspective is characterized by a hedonic appeal (an absence of suffering) - that can't be discerned in its counterarguments.

schopenhauer1

Does this not lend itself, to an anti-natalist stance? — Aryamoy Mitra

It certainly does. I am an avowed antinatalist. Most people would say too vocal on here :).

Not all individuals zealously opposed to exploitation, will prefer a cessation of all births, over being exploited in a constrained fashion. — Aryamoy Mitra

But is it not solving the question for the future generation? Certainly it is the easiest one. Just because you might be sad not having a kid doesn't mean another person has to suffer and be exploited for their labor. Look at it this way. If the parent doesn't get to procreate, all that happens is the parent cries a little and has a sad face. It absolutely does not affect a whole other existence of another being. However, if the parent does procreate all the negatives of existence, including having to labor-to-survive will befall another person. When was the last time unnecessarily creating negative conditions for others would be considered just and fair?

Life, with all its unrelenting exploitation, is a catastrophe; even a catastrophe, however - when ameliorated, is preferable to inexistence. Kierkegaard instituted several analogous ideas, if I'm not mistaken. — Aryamoy Mitra

Why is it preferable to inexistence? The child that would be born is not around to tell you so. There is no preference for something that does not exist. It is the parent's preference only.

Personally, I'm apathetic on the matter - on this front, nonetheless, your perspective is characterized by a hedonic appeal (an absence of suffering) - that can't be discerned in its counterarguments. — Aryamoy Mitra

It can be an appeal also to justice. Not forcing others into negative situations unnecessarily by starting the negative situations for them in the first place. Once born, negative situations will ensue to ameliorate situations, etc. In one instance, you can prevent it all together from occurring for someone else. It's not like someone being born is the default.. People have to make that happen.

baker

It is the parent's preference only. — schopenhauer1

And this is the whole point of antinatalism, isn't it?

It's about a person who doesn't want to be a parent, but who feels a need to convince society that refusing to be a parent is a worthy choice and that such a non-parent still deserves full respect as a human being.

Right?

schopenhauer1

And this is the whole point of antinatalism, isn't it? — baker

No it is not. The unjust and unnecessary causing the conditions for harm to take place and overall prevention of starting unnecessary harm for another is mainly the point.

It's about a person who doesn't want to be a parent, but who feels a need to convince society that refusing to be a parent is a worthy choice and that such a non-parent still deserves full respect as a human being.

Right? — baker

No not at all. This isn't equivalent to "child-free" movements or anything where it's about lifestyle choice or something like that.

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

We enforce negative conditions on others all the time without their consent. Taxes, schools, etc. So your premise that it’s always wrong to do so isn’t justified. Unless you think taxes and schooling are wrong.

Really, ANYTHING you do risks harming someone. Not sure how you get anything done with that premise.

schopenhauer1

We enforce negative conditions on others all the time without their consent. Taxes, schools, etc. So your premise that it’s always wrong to do so isn’t justified. Unless you think taxes and schooling are wrong. — khaled

We've been through this and we know where we stand on the argument..

Starting a whole new life to ameliorate those already here is still unnecessarily causing harm to someone that does not need to take place- they don't exist. "They" (the possible person) don't need to be a part of ANY of the mitigating scheme at all.

Using people that already exist to ameliorate harm is appropriate, however, like the examples you give.

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

We've been through this and we know where we stand on the argument.. — schopenhauer1

Sure but you haven’t explained your POV.

Starting a whole new life to ameliorate those already here is still unnecessarily causing harm to someone that does not need to take place.

Using people that already exist to ameliorate harm is appropriate, however, like the examples you give. — schopenhauer1

Special pleading. Why does the harm done to someone suddenly matter way more when they don’t exist yet?

Why is using someone who exists better than using someone by making them exist?

Or is that just a starting premise for you? If so I don’t think many would share it. And it should be pointed out that you have this premise. Or else your argument is incomplete.

baker

No it is not. The unjust and unnecessary causing the conditions for harm to take place and overall prevention of starting unnecessary harm for another is mainly the point. — schopenhauer1

Bah. I don't buy this oh-so compassion and oh-so empathy.

What are you, Jesus? Why on earth would you care so much about others and their suffering? It makes no sense to care so much about others!

schopenhauer1

What are you, Jesus? Why on earth would you care so much about others and their suffering? It makes no sense to care so much about others! — baker

We went over possible motives in your other thread no? I mean I gave my own in a direct reply and then you gave pretty good ones on your own. Why are those unacceptable?

baker

No not at all. This isn't equivalent to "child-free" movements or anything where it's about lifestyle choice or something like that. — schopenhauer1

Actually, it seems like a way to justify refusing to take up the hassle of being a parent.

Specifically, the whole antinatalist argument reads like a sublimated effort of a man who knocked up a woman and now he wants her to abort, and is looking for ways to convince her to have an abortion.

schopenhauer1

Special pleading. Why does the harm done to someone suddenly matter way more when they don’t exist yet?

Why is using someone who exists better than using someone by making them exist?

Or is that just a starting premise for you? If so I don’t think many would share it. And it should be pointed out that you have this premise. — khaled

So you yourself have provided this example.. I gave it in another thread..
What if you were recruited into a game, and the only thing you can do is get better at the game, join another team, or kill yourself? Would that be fair?

Well, those who are born are sort of stuck in the game. There are necessary things one must do when recruited in the game, otherwise, indeed one would be immoral/unjust to others (who are already here to have to play the game too). However, it is the initial force recruiting into the circumstances of the game that I have a problem with.

schopenhauer1

Specifically, the whole antinatalist argument reads like a sublimated effort of a man who knocked up a woman and now he wants her to abort, and is looking for ways to convince her to have an abortion. — baker

I mean, amusing as that sounds for a tragic-comedy, it is not based on these circumstances. I think you should write a sitcom on it or something though. Why not take it at face value and just argue or defend or simply comment on the arguments that antinatalists make rather than try to find these underlying and dubious motives?

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

What if you were recruited into a game, and the only thing you can do is get better at the game, join another team, or kill yourself? Would that be fair? — schopenhauer1

Depends on the situation of the people who brought me in.

Restating the same thing isn’t addressing the point. I’m asking why you think that it’s fine to use people that exist and not fine to use people by making them exist.

When you pay taxes, the only thing you can do is pay to solve other people's problems (mostly) or got to jail. Is that fair?

Arguably yes depending on the effectiveness of the taxes. If my tax money is being used for something that doesn’t benefit society then no. So what’s so different in the 2 scenarios?

schopenhauer1

Depends on the situation of the people who brought me in. — khaled

But that's what I am saying.. It is unjust to unnecessarily do it on someone else's behalf.. and you gave many many examples of this idea. Gambling with someone else.. etc. Besides which that is if we take subjective evaluation of a summation and not break it up for each instance.. Today you tell me you're good.. in a minute you fall in a hole and think life sucks, etc. etc.

Restating the same thing isn’t addressing the point. I’m asking why you think that it’s fine to use people that exist and not fine to use people by making them exist. — khaled

Because it is at the level of the person that this is taking place. It's not like people are just tools that are coming into existence to fix society and keep it going. They have (at least what appears to them) as autonomous thoughts, actions, ideas, etc. You are violating the fact that this person will NOW have to cope with the negatives when BEFORE there was no person that needed to do this.

However, once in existence, it is too late. One MUST COPE and deal with how best to mitigate harm and deal with people as autonomous, people who have dignity. That means living in a society where one must deal with situations regarding other people with compassion. The state that pays for services for other people. The helping of the drowning victim, etc. This is recognizing their dignity because they are people too.

However, if you were to say to me.. "You should create harmful situations for another person, so that they can mitigate harmful situations for someone else" I would say this is absolutely wrong. Creating from NOTHING harmful situations is different than people who already exist and are in the game. One is already here, and must follow the rules of morality. One did not need to exist to follow any of these rules or be impinged upon in the first place though.

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

Nowhere there was there an actual explanation of the differences in treatment. Just restatements that there should be one.

However, if you were to say to me.. "You should create harmful situations for another person, so that they can mitigate harmful situations for someone else" I would say this is absolutely wrong. — schopenhauer1

Jails? Taxes? How about the simple example of waking up a sleeping swimmer when you see someone drowning and you can’t swim?

Creating from NOTHING harmful situations is different than people who already exist and are in the game. — schopenhauer1

Sure it’s different. Why is that difference significant? That is the question. Because to me it sounds akin to saying “Killing mr A is wrong, but killing mr B is ok because mr B has green eyes”

Creating harmful situations is creating harmful situations. Who cares if it’s from nothing or not?

schopenhauer1

Nowhere there was there an actual explanation of the differences in treatment. Just restatements that there should be one. — khaled

I presented my case. You fail to see it, as now you are restating the same thing without trying to parse it out and synthesize it.

Jails? Taxes? How about the simple example of waking up a sleeping swimmer when you see someone drowning and you can’t swim? — khaled

Right. Falls under that too. They already exist and are in the game.

Sure it’s different. Why is that difference significant? That is the question. Because to me it sounds akin to saying “Killing mr A is wrong, but killing mr B is ok because mr B has green eyes”

Creating harmful situations is creating harmful situations. Who cares if it’s from nothing or not? — khaled

You are violating the very dignity of someone as you are trying to fix it.

The already existing person is ALREADY in the game. I'm not sure

a) how you don't see the difference here of someone who is in an inescapable game from a situation where no one is put in an inescapable game.

b) how putting someone in the inescapable game is itself violating the dignity/justice/unnecessary harm principles (whichever is your foundation) whereas once in the game, mitigating circumstances for others playing the game is not violating it.

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

You are violating the very dignity of someone as you are trying to fix it. — schopenhauer1

Fix it? No that wasn’t the proposed motivation. The motivation was: My child will likely be a positive influence, thus not having him is the riskier option. Similar to how not waking up the swimmer is the riskier option, and so you can choose to wake up the swimmer.

a) how you don't see the difference here of someone who is in an inescapable game from a situation where no one is put in an inescapable game. — schopenhauer1

I see the difference. It’s clear as day. I don’t see how it’s significant.

Again:

to me it sounds akin to saying “Killing mr A is wrong, but killing mr B is ok because mr B has green eyes” — khaled

b) how putting someone in the inescapable game is itself violating the dignity/justice/unnecessary harm principles — schopenhauer1

Yup.

once in the game, mitigating circumstances for others playing the game is not violating it. — schopenhauer1

This bit is false though. Here is an example:

waking up a sleeping swimmer when you see someone drowning and you can’t swim? — khaled

Is it violating the dignity of the swimmer? Well you’re imposing on him so yes.

Justice? Idk about that one it’s too vague a word.

Unnecessary harm? Well depends on what you mean by “unnecessary”. If harming someone to reduce harm elsewhere makes the harm “necessary” then this is not violated by birth or by this case (both are “necessary harm”). Otherwise idk what you mean by “unnecessary” harm.

But you would still wake him up in spite of this.

Exploitation of Forcing Work on Others

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions