My Beef with "Social Responsibility"

Page 5 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 12:07 pm

ruveyn wrote:

marshall wrote:

What if you didn't have your own toys? Then what is your definition of "Mine"? Is it what you claim because you happened to get to the toy bin first? I find the notion of a world that operates on that kind of principle alone pretty sad.

And what if my grand-mother had balls. Would she be my grandfather?

I brought my own toys to school. I take private property very seriously. Do you?

What is Mine is Mine, what is Yours is Yours, and what is His is His.

ruveyn

maybe you take it a little too seriously.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 May 2012, 12:43 pm

edgewaters wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Well I guess some people are able to look past themselves and also care some about other people, as well as the general well-being of the population...which is good because people like that allow for a social safety network to exist in the first place.

I care about (some) others. Why? Because it suits me. Because it suits ME. Got it?

What I do for others is based on my preferences, not on some a priori duty that I owe to Mankind.

ruveyn

Well ... its a good thing we don't all think like that, or in 30 years we'd be scratching ourselves underneath our loincloths made from animal skins, in a cave somewhere, blaming the Chinese. Any advanced civilization does demand a certain level of duty from its citizens in order to function and survive.

Yup. It doesn't matter how intelligent some of us are, without cooperation the human race wouldn't have evolved passed living in caves and beating our neighbors over the head with crude objects whenever there was a dispute over the acquisition of some resource or another. What a sad state we would be.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2012, 12:54 pm

marshall wrote:

The reason why some co-operate is because of benefits received individually. Distinguish between means and ends.

If I am caught in a ship sinking you bet I will help deploy the life-boats. If my kids are aboard I want to give them a good chance of surviving. If I am in the lifeboat you bet I will take my turn bailing out the water. It increases my very own chance of survival.

ruveyn

MjrMajorMajor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,816

24 May 2012, 1:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:

marshall wrote:

I've got to give it to Ruveyn on this one. People fall in with government regulation, and society in general because it benefits not only the greater whole, but the individuals within it. There is always an ultimate personal choice involved.

WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

24 May 2012, 1:46 pm

...

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 24 May 2012, 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 1:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The reason why some co-operate is because of benefits received individually. Distinguish between means and ends.

Not individually, unless you're the only person in your life you care about. Many co-operate because there are benefits or potential benefits to people they care about (parents, perhaps, or children). Likewise there are a million and one hidden benefits that aren't immediately apparent - like the fact that unemployment programs reduce crime. You don't notice what isn't happening.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

24 May 2012, 2:28 pm

MjrMajorMajor wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

marshall wrote:

true what is sad is that he cannot see just how much, no matter how large his contribution is, is due to the work of others,
that or he simply refuses to acknowledge it and if so is a primary part of the problem in the first place.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

24 May 2012, 2:33 pm

Let me amend my statements toward Ruveyn for clarity. It was my intention to try to illustrate how the government, under a strong legal system, is significantly less of an impediment to his liberty than the rule of a disorganized society. In a society that is not organized according to laws, traditions and ideals, you are not more free, but you really are under mob rule. If you damaged somebody's house, with no law to protect you, his neighbors would hang you out in front of yours. The law administers a more rational, reflective form of justice.

It goes back to the old saying, "why did they put the tiger in the cage? To protect the tiger from the people."

My most recent statements were far too extreme, and I will destroy the entire contents of the post. I apologize to anyone who may have been offended.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 3:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:

marshall wrote:

Wait you admitted some human emotion...why do you want your kids to have a good chance of surviving, what good will that do you? I mean its wonderful you care enough to help them but how do you benefit exactly? I think your kids might benefit more from you giving them that good chance of survival.

Also speak for yourself, not everyone is motivated by self interest alone...of course people want to take care of their own needs but most people's thinking goes beyond that once they have their needs taken care of.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2012, 3:04 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

I love my kids. I don't love yours.

ruveyn

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 3:13 pm

ruveyn wrote:

I love my kids. I don't love yours.

What about your grandkids, or nephews/nieces?

Cutting it off at one or two generations and once or twice removed is an arbitrary decision - one that others extend far more broadly. This has proved useful in creating functional societies rather than social breakdown and anarchy.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 3:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

I love my kids. I don't love yours.

ruveyn

Oh alright I was under the impression you were arguing that the only reason you would do anything for anyone else is if you personally benefit from it. But I think maybe its that you love your kids that might be more of the reason you would save them...not personal gain.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

24 May 2012, 5:15 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

I love my kids. I don't love yours.

ruveyn

But isn't it still personal gain? His children are something that he values. By protecting their lives isn't he also protecting something that he values. If his children were to die, wouldn't that be a personal loss? Hence, having his children alive is a personal gain.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 5:23 pm

JWC wrote:

Well ... what if the society is something that you value? Then it's personal gain to do anything that benefits it, but that renders the distinction meaningless.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 May 2012, 5:26 pm

edgewaters wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

I love my kids. I don't love yours.

The "nuclear family" is a very artificial arrangement. It only works well when survival is relatively easy due to prosperity and advanced technology. That breaks down considerably when survival becomes harder due to poverty and economic depressions. Psychologically it's not natural at all.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

24 May 2012, 5:26 pm

edgewaters wrote:

Well ... what if the society is something that you value? Then it's personal gain to do anything that benefits it,

Absolutely.

Quote:

but that renders the distinction meaningless.

Why?

Page 5 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

My Beef with "Social Responsibility" Post Reply New Topic

My Beef with "Social Responsibility"