there are two main philosophies in life

[Treedbear]

...
In short - in any system meant to benefit it's members, the members should be required to, in turn, contribute back to the system. The question is really how do we organize things to maintain the stability of the system.

I agree that becoming a member of some system means you made an ethical agreement. And that this necessarily means it provides some benefit to you (however unfair that might be from the perspective of some other system) and also some responsibilities. But like I say, with morality you always need to define the context. What are the borders of the system you are interested in maintaining? The OP seems to be calling for universal ethical principles:

1. That all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work and equal punishment for equal crimes
2. That some people are superior to others and deserve more money, honor, and power than the "inferior people" or "inferior races" even if they do the same work

So an objective solution would need to take into account what is good for mankind as a whole. IOW the survival of the human species. It needs to be an evolving relationship that adapts to a changing natural environment, relationships between separate and varied societies, and to the significant influence the study of history has on our awareness of what works and what doesn't.

 

[Treedbear]

...

... In the context of the most prevalent current economic system commonly referred to as capitalism yes it is deserved. It would be unethical for what is earned to be denied. But the system isn't purely capitalistic. If it was every citizen would have access to capital. That is, they would have enough wealth that they could survive with a surplus sufficient to invest in personal development and to take advantage of opportunities when they appear. So we provide government and some private programs for the redistribution of wealth that are partially socialistic. Personally I think there should be a better term to describe this hybrid system. So my answer is yes that they deserve what they earned but not all of it....

But there are other contexts out there. Looking for something with a more objectively moral basis many people look to religion.... the system we have now, while secular, requires some adjustment in order to become truly humanistic.

I mostly agree with your viewpoint here, but I would have phrased it to avoid the word "deserve." (I've reddened the phrasings I object to: If altering quotes in this way is against etiquette here, I apologize.) Capitalism is touted NOT to give entrepreneurs what they "deserve" but because encouraging entrepreneurship allegedly benefits society as a whole.

As a trivial example, the text of patent law supports my view. Patents are NOT issued to reward inventors with profits they "deserve." They are issued to promote progress.

[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

What term is more suitable to you then "deserve"? I'd agree that it can imply several contradictory things depending on the context. When discussing capitalism one is due what one has earned. Where we have a blend of capitalism and socialism there is a variable relationship between what one earns and what one gets to keep. That's why there should be a better term to describe what we have. I'd prefer to define capitalism and socialism as tools rather than as ideologies. Capitalism is such a powerful too that it needs to be balanced with socialism. Unfortunately, since both of the terms are currently being tossed around and manipulated for political as well as religious purposes, stating that something is "deserved" invites arguments based on misinterpretation. But what is a suitable alternative?

Regarding patents. I think the patent is in itself the reward in that it provides government protection which improves one's ability to obtain a profit. The right to apply for a patent is what is deserved.

 

[no-one-particular]

(I think I agree with rousseau's implied meaning here.)

... One of the children makes a lot of money, another is very poor. Does the rich child deserve what he earned?

Does the wolf deserve to kill and eat the lamb it just outraced?

Discussion of an economics issue often goes astray as soon as a word like "deserve" is introduced.

if the American people rise up and form an army and fight and overthrow the government and confiscate all private property and all businesses then did the American people "deserve" the bounty they have taken?

 

[Swammerdami]

I mostly agree with your viewpoint here, but I would have phrased it to avoid the word "deserve." (I've reddened the phrasings I object to: If altering quotes in this way is against etiquette here, I apologize.) Capitalism is touted NOT to give entrepreneurs what they "deserve" but because encouraging entrepreneurship allegedly benefits society as a whole.

As a trivial example, the text of patent law supports my view. Patents are NOT issued to reward inventors with profits they "deserve." They are issued to promote progress.

What term is more suitable to you then "deserve"? ... Regarding patents. I think the patent is in itself the reward in that it provides government protection which improves one's ability to obtain a profit. The right to apply for a patent is what is deserved.

Until you're willing to address the question Does the wolf deserve to kill and eat the lamb it just outran? I suggest that instead of seeking a substitute for the word "deserve" we just avoid sentences where such a word is needed at all. It's generally wrong to treat economics or politics in terms of morality.

Our discussion would continue to spin in circles, so I'll stop. However it would be nice if you at least indicated that you understand my point, or even that you understand the stated purpose of patent law.

 

[ruby sparks]

I mostly agree with your viewpoint here, but I would have phrased it to avoid the word "deserve." (I've reddened the phrasings I object to: If altering quotes in this way is against etiquette here, I apologize.) Capitalism is touted NOT to give entrepreneurs what they "deserve" but because encouraging entrepreneurship allegedly benefits society as a whole.

As a trivial example, the text of patent law supports my view. Patents are NOT issued to reward inventors with profits they "deserve." They are issued to promote progress.

What term is more suitable to you then "deserve"? I'd agree that it can imply several contradictory things depending on the context. When discussing capitalism one is due what one has earned. Where we have a blend of capitalism and socialism there is a variable relationship between what one earns and what one gets to keep. That's why there should be a better term to describe what we have. I'd prefer to define capitalism and socialism as tools rather than as ideologies. Capitalism is such a powerful too that it needs to be balanced with socialism. Unfortunately, since both of the terms are currently being tossed around and manipulated for political as well as religious purposes, stating that something is "deserved" invites arguments based on misinterpretation. But what is a suitable alternative?

Regarding patents. I think the patent is in itself the reward in that it provides government protection which improves one's ability to obtain a profit. The right to apply for a patent is what is deserved.

Personally, I'm good with 'deserve'.

Or at least I can't think of a better word.

With the (rather large) caveat that the universe is amoral.

But in terms of human psychology, deserve is a useful word, imo.

 

[no-one-particular]

(I think I agree with rousseau's implied meaning here.)

... One of the children makes a lot of money, another is very poor. Does the rich child deserve what he earned?

Does the wolf deserve to kill and eat the lamb it just outraced?

Discussion of an economics issue often goes astray as soon as a word like "deserve" is introduced.

Let me make this simple for you since I dont think you are capable of figuring it out on your own.

The answer is no. The wolf did not pay for the meat. The lamb did not agree to the wolves price. The wolf is a criminal.

The wolf did not deserve the meat. Wolves are uncivilized. Thats why we shoot them when they come into the city.

Now read my signature

 

[rousseau]

...
In short - in any system meant to benefit it's members, the members should be required to, in turn, contribute back to the system. The question is really how do we organize things to maintain the stability of the system.

I agree that becoming a member of some system means you made an ethical agreement. And that this necessarily means it provides some benefit to you (however unfair that might be from the perspective of some other system) and also some responsibilities. But like I say, with morality you always need to define the context. What are the borders of the system you are interested in maintaining? The OP seems to be calling for universal ethical principles:

1. That all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work and equal punishment for equal crimes
2. That some people are superior to others and deserve more money, honor, and power than the "inferior people" or "inferior races" even if they do the same work

So an objective solution would need to take into account what is good for mankind as a whole. IOW the survival of the human species. It needs to be an evolving relationship that adapts to a changing natural environment, relationships between separate and varied societies, and to the significant influence the study of history has on our awareness of what works and what doesn't.

This comment implies that the human species is a coherent group with coherent and unified goals. Is that true? Will it ever be true? And if we're primarily concerned with the survival of our species, why not other species too? Why does our species take precedence? Is the survival of our species even a meaningful goal? If so, why?

 

[Treedbear]

I mostly agree with your viewpoint here, but I would have phrased it to avoid the word "deserve." (I've reddened the phrasings I object to: If altering quotes in this way is against etiquette here, I apologize.) Capitalism is touted NOT to give entrepreneurs what they "deserve" but because encouraging entrepreneurship allegedly benefits society as a whole.

As a trivial example, the text of patent law supports my view. Patents are NOT issued to reward inventors with profits they "deserve." They are issued to promote progress.

What term is more suitable to you then "deserve"? ... Regarding patents. I think the patent is in itself the reward in that it provides government protection which improves one's ability to obtain a profit. The right to apply for a patent is what is deserved.

Until you're willing to address the question Does the wolf deserve to kill and eat the lamb it just outran? I suggest that instead of seeking a substitute for the word "deserve" we just avoid sentences where such a word is needed at all.

Referring back to the OP, do some deserve to get more money than others?
Or would you prefer:
Is it right for some to ...
Is it ethical for some to ...
Is it proper for some to ...
Does it make sense for some to ...
Is it justified for some to ...

Is there another way to ask the question?

It's generally wrong to treat economics or politics in terms of morality.

That point of view is totally incomprehensible to me. Especially when we are in the midst of a election having monumental moral as well as economic consequences.

Our discussion would continue to spin in circles, so I'll stop. However it would be nice if you at least indicated that you understand my point, or even that you understand the stated purpose of patent law.

I don't understand what your point has to do with prey/predator relationships in the natural world. The context of the OP was one involving social relationships among humans. Perhaps I overlooked what you meant and the wolf was attacking a lamb that was part of a flock owned by humans. Anyway, I was trying to point out that understanding the context is of primary importance. It sounded to me as if you wanted to change the context to include the entire animal kingdom. If that is true then I'll answer that yes, the wolf does indeed deserve to catch and kill the lamb, as long as it intends to eat it or feed it to it's offspring. That's the way the natural world works. Frankly both predator and prey benefit as a whole from that relationship because without predators the prey would over-populate and over-graze. The entire ecosystem would suffer and collapse. That's the way things work. The rules of the game. The ethical code of conduct. For the wolf to do otherwise would be immoral owing to the fact that it would be undermining the ability of it's pack and in principle the species as a whole to survive. Now I know most folks will say that non-human species don't think in terms of morality. Morality applies to human beings. That's certainly not true for any creature that possesses intelligence, which includes every species having a brain to some degree. You would be missing the the point of morality if ignore its purpose.

I understand your point about capitalism and the example of the purpose of the patent system. But the system doesn't exist in and of itself. The patent system is there to benefit society as a whole, of course, but by recognizing the needs of the patent holder to have the right to exclude others from profiting off their invention. By granting them that right it becomes something they deserve. That's part of the context of the system.

 

[Treedbear]

...
So an objective solution would need to take into account what is good for mankind as a whole. IOW the survival of the human species. It needs to be an evolving relationship that adapts to a changing natural environment, relationships between separate and varied societies, and to the significant influence the study of history has on our awareness of what works and what doesn't.

This comment implies that the human species is a coherent group with coherent and unified goals. Is that true? Will it ever be true? And if we're primarily concerned with the survival of our species, why not other species too? Why does our species take precedence? Is the survival of our species even a meaningful goal? If so, why?

I'm trying to approach the subject of morality as objectively as possible. If you want to look at it from a more personal, subjective point of view then I have to ask what standards you yourself use to arrive at an opinion of what policies your government should pursue. Does it have anything to do with what you believe other nations or peoples around the world deserve? Or how about people on the other side of your own country, or those who will be born after you and your family are long gone? We owe people our consideration simply because they are human beings. We do have unified goals, and they tend to encompass those things that benefit our well being and the well being of our descendants.

I'm sure we could think of a thousand examples of why our species is more important than any other. Mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches, various deadly bacteria to name a few. The species we consider important are the ones we find necessary for our survival, or things that seem to symbolize it. Butterflies and such. But I can try to answer your question of why we take precedence from an objective of subjective perspective. Subjectively we are born with an instincts that benefit our survival. Fight or flight and all that. And these are amplified by our cultural traditions. Objectively I need to step into the realm of metaphysics. All species have a basic instinct and genetic predisposition to survive. That's plainly not a coincidence. Things exist at all because they survive. Therefore it follows that the purpose of existence is survival. They are inseparable concepts. It is the fundamental requirement of all life at the level of species. There is no other answer to the meaning of existence. Despite the vain pleading of religions. And it's beautifully simple. Complexity springing out of simplicity.

 

[rousseau]

...
So an objective solution would need to take into account what is good for mankind as a whole. IOW the survival of the human species. It needs to be an evolving relationship that adapts to a changing natural environment, relationships between separate and varied societies, and to the significant influence the study of history has on our awareness of what works and what doesn't.

This comment implies that the human species is a coherent group with coherent and unified goals. Is that true? Will it ever be true? And if we're primarily concerned with the survival of our species, why not other species too? Why does our species take precedence? Is the survival of our species even a meaningful goal? If so, why?

I'm trying to approach the subject of morality as objectively as possible. If you want to look at it from a more personal, subjective point of view then I have to ask what standards you yourself use to arrive at an opinion of what policies your government should pursue. Does it have anything to do with what you believe other nations or peoples around the world deserve? Or how about people on the other side of your own country, or those who will be born after you and your family are long gone? We owe people our consideration simply because they are human beings. We do have unified goals, and they tend to encompass those things that benefit our well being and the well being of our descendants.

I'm sure we could think of a thousand examples of why our species is more important than any other. Mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches, various deadly bacteria to name a few. The species we consider important are the ones we find necessary for our survival, or things that seem to symbolize it. Butterflies and such. But I can try to answer your question of why we take precedence from an objective of subjective perspective. Subjectively we are born with an instincts that benefit our survival. Fight or flight and all that. And these are amplified by our cultural traditions. Objectively I need to step into the realm of metaphysics. All species have a basic instinct and genetic predisposition to survive. That's plainly not a coincidence. Things exist at all because they survive. Therefore it follows that the purpose of existence is survival. They are inseparable concepts. It is the fundamental requirement of all life at the level of species. There is no other answer to the meaning of existence. Despite the vain pleading of religions. And it's beautifully simple. Complexity springing out of simplicity.

To me good for humanity is one of those phrases that sounds nice, but doesn't quite hit the 'objective' part you're looking for. It's easy, from a subjective point of view, to embrace humanity, but once we get into the realm of reality and law, humanity isn't a unified group.

Yes, if there is a major threat like Global Warming, or say, a meteor, it makes sense to band together on some level. But usually we're comprised of sub-groups, living in different regions, with different cultures, and different resources. It's not that we can't have respect for our species, and all life, on some level, but there is no such thing as all human beings are equal under the law, and indeed there can't be. If that was truly our objective goal the nation state as sovereign body wouldn't exist anymore.

Furthermore I'm leery about the the survival of our species being a meaningful goal, when evolution works on the individual, and the survival of individuals depend on the survival of nation-states, not humanity as a whole. Sure it might work as an ideal and sound nice, but in practice that's not how life on our planet works.

Lastly, basing our morality on what we are, a species meant to survive, seems short-sighted. If for some reason we're extending the goodness of our hearts to every human, I see no reason why this shouldn't extend to other animals as well. If we are good only toward humans, but not other animals, then it's not moral goodness on any level, it's just a manifestation of our survival instinct.

 

[no-one-particular]

I am the op. This thread is not about morality. Read my signature. This thread is about civilization vs anarchy. The animal kingdom is anarchy.

Uncivilized people dont like to talk about civilized behavior so they change the subject to morality.

I can see that I am wasting my time here.

None is so blind as he who doesnt want to see.

I can also see that I have greatly overestimated how civilized modern society and modern people are.

 

[no-one-particular]

It is true that wolves are not immoral but wolves are uncivilized.

There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior. Only civilized and uncivilized behavior. Civilized laws are laws that do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights above what all others have. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

 

[Treedbear]

I am the op. This thread is not about morality. Read my signature. This thread is about civilization vs anarchy.

Sorry but you neglected to mention that in your OP. Everyone responding seems to think otherwise. If you had I would have op'ted out.

The animal kingdom is anarchy.

Uncivilized people dont like to talk about civilized behavior so they change the subject to morality.

And now call us uncivilized. Lovely.

I can see that I am wasting my time here.

No, you're wasting our time.

None is so blind as he who doesnt want to see.

Apparently.

I can also see that I have greatly overestimated how civilized modern society and modern people are.

The door is that way. Somehow I think we'll manage to get along.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Are their really any genetic differences of significance within humanity?

Between individuals? Certainly.

Genetic disorders are one example. I was born with a genetic condition.

 

[no-one-particular]

[YOUTUBE]eY6sXx_x8ts[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I am the op. This thread is not about morality. Read my signature. This thread is about civilization vs anarchy. The animal kingdom is anarchy.

Uncivilized people dont like to talk about civilized behavior so they change the subject to morality.

I can see that I am wasting my time here.

None is so blind as he who doesnt want to see.

I can also see that I have greatly overestimated how civilized modern society and modern people are.

An interesting person you should know about then is John Lilburne. Lilburen lived in the 1600's, the era of the English civil wars. An era where the common Englishman had few rights as compared to the king, nobles and Anglican church. It was Lilburne who championed rights for the common Englishmen, and demanded a Constitution to guarantee those rights. He spent much of his life in prison or exile. But slowly his ideas prevailed. Lilburne is one of those almost unknown heros who helped civilized the English speaking world. At one time, he was the most popular man in England among the common Englishmen.

A cantankerous, obstinate man almost impossible to get along with, but an important figure that hurried the death of the last of divine right of kings, and unbridled power of the nobles in England. and in America, where we did indeed get a Constitution as Lilburne envisioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne

John Lilburne (1614 – 29 August 1657), also known as Freeborn John, was an English political Leveller before, during and after the English Civil Wars 1642–1650. He coined the term "freeborn rights", defining them as rights with which every human being is born, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or human law.^[1] In his early life he was a Puritan, though towards the end of his life he became a Quaker. His works have been cited in opinions by the United States Supreme Court.

 

[Lion IRC]

...all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work

This is problematic because (as @Treedbear noted) its not necessarily true that every worker equally needs the same pay.
And because the person buying - paying for - that worker's labor ought to have an option to decide whose labor they prefer.

There's a lot of equal pay gender politics going on in sport and entertainment but I don't recall hearing those wimmin arguing that ALL female actors, singers, soccer players... should be paid the same.

 

[no-one-particular]

...all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work

This is problematic because (as @Treedbear noted) its not necessarily true that every worker equally needs the same pay.
And because the person buying - paying for - that worker's labor ought to have an option to decide whose labor they prefer.

There's a lot of equal pay gender politics going on in sport and entertainment but I don't recall hearing those wimmin arguing that ALL female actors, singers, soccer players... should be paid the same.

If they do the same amount of the same type of work then they should receive the same pay

 

[Harry Bosch]

...all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work

This is problematic because (as @Treedbear noted) its not necessarily true that every worker equally needs the same pay.
And because the person buying - paying for - that worker's labor ought to have an option to decide whose labor they prefer.

There's a lot of equal pay gender politics going on in sport and entertainment but I don't recall hearing those wimmin arguing that ALL female actors, singers, soccer players... should be paid the same.

If they do the same amount of the same type of work then they should receive the same pay

According to whom? Do you acknowledge that seniority should play a role? One if one worker negotiates a higher wage than another? What if one worker at a company lives in Utah with a lower standard of living than his co-worker in New York?

 

[no-one-particular]

If they do the same amount of the same type of work then they should receive the same pay

According to whom? Do you acknowledge that seniority should play a role? One if one worker negotiates a higher wage than another? What if one worker at a company lives in Utah with a lower standard of living than his co-worker in New York?

Thats called measuring with a variable ruler