So you admit to adopting an illogical position and thus you concede the debate. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?
What do you mean by “society”, and why does it (whatever it is) “[need] to pick someone to run its legal system”?
Earlier you used the phrase “completely or at least mostly eliminate the safety hazards”. Ignoring for the moment what you think actually constitutes a “safety hazard”, it’s clear from that phrase that you consider the elimination of safety hazards to be your ultimate goal here. If that’s not your position, then why did you use that phrase? I don’t see how that phrase can logically imply any other position. So I’d like to know what your actual position is here, and why it is what it is. If your position is indeed that the elimination of safety hazards is your ultimate goal here, then I’d like to know why.
So no, I really don’t see how I was ignoring your implicit assumptions. Maybe I was mistaken about what they are, but if so, the onus is on you to correct my mistake. I’m not a mind-reader, after all.
Do you understand what the fallacy of composition is or not? Please answer my question.
What do you mean by “inefficiency”? How much do you think justifies it? Is this just another instance of “I know it when I see it”, i.e. a subjective whim, or is there an empirical formula to be used here?
How do you think utility can be objectively measured?
If that’s not clear enough, I’ll just move on. Sorry, I know you’ve asked these questions a few times, but I don’t see anything to add to a word definition besides my totalitarian whims or what’s in the dictionary.
Because I thought it was a desirable but unrealistic goal.
I’d like to make workplaces safer. Why is that desirable? Whim. If you like unsafe workplaces, I guess that’s that.
I know what it is and I didn’t literally mean that all workplace safety issues are the same.
Yep, whim. Watch those videos and get back to me about how great it was not to have worker protections.
How not? To continue “arguing” from an illogical position entails conceding the logical debate.
What I’m trying to do is understand your thinking, and it appears that you don’t want me to succeed there. That, of course, means that you’re not engaging me honestly and straightforwardly. So why bother engaging me at all? “For the lulz”? I don’t see how there’s any “lulz” to be had here, but then again I’m not you.
In other words, I was basically right - like I thought. So how again was I ignoring your implicit assumptions?
I’m sure there’s more to it than just “whim”. Remember, I’m trying to understand your thinking. Questioning your desire for safer workplaces (better for your “make workplaces safer”) in no way means I necessarily don’t share that desire.
Then why do you point to alleged conditions inside a single meat-packing plant as representative of what your opponents want - or what their positions would necessarily entail?
I can’t prove how “apples therefore giraffes” (or your argument) or “all systems besides moral absolutism are illogical” doesn’t follow. It just doesn’t. There’s no logical progression there.
It’s lulz.
I don’t remember.
I like safe workplaces because I like to work in them, and I think it helps other workers too. If not employers.
Because that’s a nasty example of what those positions lead to.
Actually, few utilitarians even proposed a way to quantitatively measure utility. I don’t think that was ever the objective.
Anyone who continues arguing from an illogical position, after admitting that their position is illogical, has conceded the logical debate.
You’ve continued arguing from an illogical position after admitting that your position is illogical.
Therefore, you’ve conceded the logical debate.
Yeah, I don’t believe you. I see no “lulz” to be had from this. And you don’t really seem amused.
I don’t believe you here either. So let’s try this again: how again was I ignoring your implicit assumptions?
Wouldn’t that make it in employers’ interest to make their workplaces safer?
Of course, there’s also the question of what you think constitutes a “safe workplace” vs. what others think constitutes such. Like I said before, I don’t accept “I know it when I see it” as a legitimate answer to this question.
Necessarily? If so, please elaborate on your reasoning here.
“The greatest good for the greatest number” is the classic expression of the utilitarian position, attributed to John Stuart Mill. The word “greatest” implies maximization, which is inherently quantitative.
Not always, if it costs the employer. Employees are basically free to the employer; one gets killed/mangled and he draws another from the labor pool without bearing the full cost of what happened.
Not necessarily. But you don’t seem to be concerned with historical evidence.
Not necessarily.
Because I’m arguing from utilitarian whims, and for the record that’s all I’ll base my moral positions on from now on. Whether or not whims are always “illogical” has no meaningful answer. Maybe they are in the sense that an ought cannot be derived from an is, but not always in the sense of being contradictory.
Right here: “Yep, and you could call any statement I make that isn’t completely in line with some moral absolutist position a ‘special plea’.”
Not bearing the “full cost of what happened” doesn’t mean bearing basically no cost whatsoever. That’s another false dilemma you’re trying to peddle. Furthermore, your position begs the question as to why the employer should bear the “full cost of what happened”, let alone the question of what the “full cost of what happened” actually is.
Historical evidence is irrelevant here. You’ve just effectively conceded that your position is not the only one that could prevent or mitigate the conditions found in that meat-packing plant.
What else do you think the word “greatest”, when used in that context, can imply? Or are you saying that maximization is not necessarily inherently quantitative? Vague phrases like this don’t help advance the debate, but I’m not sure if you’re really that interested in advancing it.
Nevertheless, I think your moral positions are most definitely hypocritical (i.e. contradictory).
Sorry, I wasn’t aware exactly what the phrase meant, and I’ll take that back. I’ll say it wasn’t a special plea. If special plea is taken to mean presenting a point without support, well, this is a moral argument, and my support is my moral opinion (“whim”).
The second. Having the most fun getting banned from Mises (this is probably my last post btw) is an example of a qualitative maximization problem.
I never said “basically no cost whatsoever”; stop that. My reasons for wanting workplace safety and my acknowledgement that law operates case-by-base have been discussed quite a bit, but I don’t think I’ll be able to keep posting.
I don’t see it. Worker’s comp might not be perfect, but repealing it is probably worse if historical evidence means anything.
Keep in mind that this is what started our whole sub-discussion about special pleading:
If you’re now saying that you weren’t resorting to special pleading, then you must agree that, by your reasoning, I wouldn’t be responsible for my own death if I was unlucky in a round of Russian roulette.
What does the phrase “qualitative maximization problem” actually mean to you? I consider it to be nonsensical. It doesn’t make sense to me to talk about maximization in a qualitative sense.
You said that employees are basically free to the employer, did you not? “Basically free” and “basically no cost whatsoever” mean the same thing, do they not?
Just so you know, I’m not the one reporting your posts (if anyone is).
Acknowledging that what the state calls “law” operates on a case-by-case basis in no way means one must agree with it ever. I maintain that you resort to “I know it when I see it” as a cop-out against questions of principle, which I don’t think looks good on your part. Maybe you don’t care, but whether you do really makes no difference to me.
Either you really don’t see it, in which case I think you’re deluded, or you really do see it and don’t care, in which case I think you’re deluded and also trolling.
Maybe. Then again, I was talking about a particular application of my utilitarianism rather than universal linguistic rules.
Well, let me give you an engineering example of qualitative maximization if you can’t see how qualitative factors can matter. QKT optimization requires qualitative approaches.
Ah, hyperbole again. Well, I’m sure there is some cost; they do have to spend time hiring new people after killing them.
What, exactly, is the contradiction? That I have subjective opinions about morals that didn’t emerge somehow from formal logic? That a legal definition of neglience in worker’s comp matters for Russian Roulette? I’m going to need more explanation.