Some thoughts...sylvia_roseOctober 15 2007, 14:21:50 UTC
A few nights ago, I was talking to you via IM about a somewhat similar topic: do people deserve to be treated certain ways as human beings? Though I never specifically mentioned being ripped off it falls I think under the category of "being used" quite nicely. And is it right to talk about other people behind their back? Do people deserve better than being gossiped about or being used as "machinery to be tweaked"? It's funny to hear you talk about that because your answer to me seemed to say, "Well, who's to say what one human being deserves at all, and should we even care about it at all?" It made me rather frustrated seeing that you seemed to have no cares about whether one person has been treated rather unfairly, saying we cannot judge what fairness is and therefore shouldn't really worry about it
( ... )
Re: Some thoughts...crazillaOctober 15 2007, 14:46:44 UTC
There are a couple of distinctions between this topic and the one from our earlier conversation, at least to me: One is the idea that there's some objective measure of what people deserve, based on what they've done (and, presumably, been through); whether it exists or not, i don't consider it worth consideration when it comes to one's own moral code, since no individual would be able to gauge another's worth in order to act according to it anyway.
The topic of this note is willful, conscious exploitation of (possibly a broad class of) people; whereas in our earlier conversation it was emotionally-motivated (see third paragraph above), possibly unwillful, and possibly unconscious exploitation of someone on a personal level. The latter, i feel, is best resolved by the individuals determining how much they themselves are willing to put up with to preserve whatever would be lost by ending the situation (on the part of the exploiter, maybe some freedom or comfort; on the part of the exploited, possibly a significant relationship). The
( ... )
To be honest, I don't see a difference between something that's emotionally driven and something that's financially driven. And the idea that what people deserve is based on what they've done is in effect playing favoritism. There are things that humans deserve no matter what they have done, are doing, or are capable of doing. If that wasn't true, then you should have no problems with concious exploitation of a certain class if you have no problems with it in general (and vice versa). To be honet, that doesn't make any sense to me. I hold firm that the two topics are definately interrelated. People will often do things without realizing that they are hurting someone or just choose not to think about the fact that what they are doing is exploiting someone. I guarantee that most people who exploit the rich financially did so without intentionally meaning to hurt them, feeling that what they are doing isn't bad or hurtful in the least. It may stem from my religious background, but using people is using people, whether it's
( ... )
If you knew some of the things I have done in my past, if you suddenly knew EVERYTHING about me, would you start treating me with less respect? If what someone deserves is truly based on what they've done or who they are as a person then you'd have to treat me differently from other people knowing that. And that's just wrong and horribly unfair in my eyes.
"Should we all confess our sins to one another we would all laugh at one another for our lack off originality. Should we all reveal our virtues we would also laugh for the same cause." -Gibran Khalil Gibran
i think people would be easier with one another if we could drop the pretense of trying to be the local conception of perfect.
Hmm. If perfection is a local, but not necessarily global, property, might there be a universal covering (of perfection onto humanity)? If so, this covering could be used to continuously deform people to local standards of perfection as they move (pathwise) from place to place, thereby tracing out "perfect curves" over the globe.
By the hairy ball theorem, there must be some locality at which perfection is simply nonexistence . . . or is that already everywhere?
A few points, since it's difficult to respond paragraph-wise:
The issue of "deservance" seems to be semantic: You say that people deserve certain basic levels of respect from others; i say that people should treat others with certain basic levels of respect. I avoid thinking of it as deserved because i think of deserving and earning similarly, and nothing is done (or should be done) by a person to earn this basic level of respect. So, if A treats B disrespectfully, A is at fault, regardless.1
Part of my point is that a person's morals should not be person-specific; it's appropriate for what A knows of B to influence how A treats B only within the constraints of A's universal morals code. We seem to be in agreement on this.
Everybody2 acts irrationally under enough emotional stress; their morality is revealed in what they do to prevent, limit, cushion, etc. this behavior. If A hurts B under emotional stress, once B has made A aware of how B was hurt and A (and B) has taken (lasting) steps to prevent, etc. a repetition (presumably
( ... )
This is mostly just to let you know I do read your LJtheoriginalmccOctober 18 2007, 13:31:18 UTC
I think in the conversation you heard, to "rip off" the wealthy is not a sin/crime/dark side of human nature. It's more semantics. (Like when I say I'm going to steal a cookie, I hope you do not actually feel that I am stealing from you.) If the wealthy person does not want to be ripped off, they do not have to stay at the vacation home. They can look for a better deal or just stay home. If it's a luxury to begin with, overpricing is part of the game. Plus, the wealthy sometimes appreciate rental properties being intentionally overpriced just because it tends to keep out the riffraff.
So I do not consider that the same as ripping off people on things that are considered standard equipment for American life: health care, transportation, food, etc. On the other hand, I haven't seen the media revelations that you were referring to. All I see are the commercials for title loans and settlement liquidation that appear in the commercial breaks of the Jerry Springer show.
Comments 7
Reply
The topic of this note is willful, conscious exploitation of (possibly a broad class of) people; whereas in our earlier conversation it was emotionally-motivated (see third paragraph above), possibly unwillful, and possibly unconscious exploitation of someone on a personal level. The latter, i feel, is best resolved by the individuals determining how much they themselves are willing to put up with to preserve whatever would be lost by ending the situation (on the part of the exploiter, maybe some freedom or comfort; on the part of the exploited, possibly a significant relationship). The ( ... )
Reply
Reply
"Should we all confess our sins to one another we would all laugh at one another for our lack off originality. Should we all reveal our virtues we would also laugh for the same cause."
-Gibran Khalil Gibran
i think people would be easier with one another if we could drop the pretense of trying to be the local conception of perfect.
Reply
By the hairy ball theorem, there must be some locality at which perfection is simply nonexistence . . . or is that already everywhere?
Reply
The issue of "deservance" seems to be semantic: You say that people deserve certain basic levels of respect from others; i say that people should treat others with certain basic levels of respect. I avoid thinking of it as deserved because i think of deserving and earning similarly, and nothing is done (or should be done) by a person to earn this basic level of respect. So, if A treats B disrespectfully, A is at fault, regardless.1
Part of my point is that a person's morals should not be person-specific; it's appropriate for what A knows of B to influence how A treats B only within the constraints of A's universal morals code. We seem to be in agreement on this.
Everybody2 acts irrationally under enough emotional stress; their morality is revealed in what they do to prevent, limit, cushion, etc. this behavior. If A hurts B under emotional stress, once B has made A aware of how B was hurt and A (and B) has taken (lasting) steps to prevent, etc. a repetition (presumably ( ... )
Reply
So I do not consider that the same as ripping off people on things that are considered standard equipment for American life: health care, transportation, food, etc. On the other hand, I haven't seen the media revelations that you were referring to. All I see are the commercials for title loans and settlement liquidation that appear in the commercial breaks of the Jerry Springer show.
Reply
Leave a comment