Lately I've been thinking about morality more, as I've realized that it doesn't really matter if I think morality is relative, people will still argue with points of morality, and in debate you're generally supposed to counter points with points of a similar nature. Actually, because I think morality is relative I can argue with perspectives other than my own and still be reasonable, so it's not a disadvantage or anything. It just makes me think of morality more. It has made me decide to actually create a code of what my own personal morals are, where before I simply decided if I was fine with whatever I was doing, it was fine. I won't do this all at once, I think I'll only cover thievery in this post.
I've never stolen anything in my life, nor do I really intend to actively start, but that's because it is usually just easier not to. A couple times I've had stuff stolen for me. It hasn't bothered me. Thievery is an act of redistributing resources without consent. If you are keeping the resources for yourself, that can be seen as selfish. Which as I've said before, I don't always have a problem with. Stealing and giving it away or something is even better. What matters is not the getting, but the taking. Whether I am fine with stealing depends who I'm stealing from.
Stealing is a destructive force, I won't steal from anything I don't want to destroy. Stealing from a corporation whose practices I don't agree with is a good thing because it damages them. It is a method outside of the system, and thus damages the system, but I want the system to change; so that is also good. It is selfish because it is a purely unilateral approach to achieving change, and any unilateral change is tyrannical, but part of the system that I want to change is how people see it, and that IS selfish. I won't steal from any individual, although I guess some of the larger super rich families can be considered corporations and I would steal from them. Small and private businesses I would be very hesitant to steal from, because no matter their practices, which are most likely better than larger ones as well, they simply miss it more and obviously aren't a huge social problem anyway.
Rather than write more or read this over and edit it, I'm lazy so I'm just gonna hit post.
The thing about demonizing corporations, particularly big ones, is that the entity "corporation" also is made up of sometimes thousands of individuals, each possessing jobs and trying to fend for their families. Sure, one person stealing doesn't do anything, but if everyone just stole like it was nothing, these corporations would lose so much money they'd be forced to lay people off/go bankrupt.
ReplyDeleteRealize that although it's easy to hate the corporation as a whole, I for one work at a superstore, and it basically functions as a mini-local store, consisting entirely of local people. The only difference is we get shat on by the people in head office. :)
Suppose all these people thus employed were laid off. How many of them would have to steal to survive, and how many of those stealings would rob other people of their livelihoods, until it simply becomes a survival of the fittest with people preciously guarding what they have. You might have the moral ability to say "No, you don't steal from poor people," but someone else could easily say "No, I won't steal from anyone poorer than me," and so on and so forth until it's basically meaningless. You have to adopt that universal code and just agree "Do Not Steal," otherwise you're putting the fabric of society at risk.
Tl;dr; it's easy to steal from a big, shady idea of "Corporation," but you forget that the corporation also employs many many local individuals. If this weren't the case, a company going bankrupt/layoffs wouldn't be so troublesome.
Essentially, what makes your right to have something trump the person who already has it, and what's to prevent somebody else from simply deciding that their right trumps yours?
First, when I say morality is relative, I mean each person has it and it only applies to them, and that it is flexible rather than absolute. Applying one perspective to the whole system just doesn't make sense. The way the world is right now, I like the destruction of these corporations. I am not saying corporations are inherently evil and should be destroyed no matter what.
ReplyDeleteI don't have all of my ideas fully worked out yet about economics, but I know that the way it currently is needs to change, and I know change ALWAYS hurts someone.
I know Wal-mart employs a bunch of people, but I would still make them go bankrupt right now if I could. The corporation employs those people, but it is not those people. They're tools of it, not citizens. Right up to the CEO, no one is really. It's just the corporation, which is separate and incredibly annoying. And totally ok to steal from. The big virtue that capitalism is supposed to have is that it's adaptable anyway, if Wal-mart went under, lots of smaller similar stores would pop up. Anyway, corporations are not people and do not have any value in of themselves. They are but tools, and they're being used very badly.
If you're gonna apply my morality to everyone else, at least apply the whole thing. No one would ever steal from another person, family owned businesses and other small and honourable enterprises would thrive, while all gigantic and annoying ones would be ended. You wouldn't be stepped on by a head office any more either. So yeah, while applying personal morality on a large scale doesn't make sense, you did it wrong.
Fuck society, at a certain point you need to decide what consequences are worth looking at, and what is just an excuse. Never, ever, do something you consider wrong for the "greater good", it's bullshit. If there's something in your way; destroy it, if you want something, build it. Fear nothing.
Your ending questions: I don't have that right, which is why I will never steal from a person. And there's nothing to prevent it and nothing ever will. That is their choice. I will try to stop them, but I certainly won't hold it against them. Again: relative morality.
Yeah, I used way too many words to say what I meant unclearly, but I was tired when I wrote my main post, and much more so now. I'm sure you can figure it out.
"If you're gonna apply my morality to everyone else, at least apply the whole thing."
ReplyDeleteThat's the point, and the danger with relativism - I wasn't applying your specific ideas about morality, but rather how you approach it. You have your morality, but there's nothing to say everyone else will adopt your code - relativism, you see? Everyone can just do exactly what they want, and if people want to steal, who's going to stop them? In a relativistic world, there's nothing wrong with that, so it'll just develop into the aforementioned - hell, as you illustrated, if you don't like something, destroy it. That's a whole lot of death and destruction across the entire world, and the only way things will survive is if people agree to not destroy it, making a social contract (that's Plato, I believe). You don't steal my stuff, I don't steal yours.
You made a lot of again, relativistic statements here. It's fine if that's just your personal idea, but you are just one person and won't be able to accomplish anything if you can't sway people to your cause. Sure, you might be able to steal a couple of things - until you're caught.
Specifically, the notions of local businesses being "honourable," and big corporations being "annoying." What precisely is there in local businesses that makes them inherently honourable? There's nothing preventing Jack Thompson from ripping people off just the same as anyone else; you can say that if he tries no one will buy from him, but that same standard applies to corporations, as well.
Likewise, what is there inherently in corporations that makes them bad? What makes Wal-mart - which is the typical scapegoat for the anti-corporate types - do wrong? In fact, can you even accuse it of doing any kind of wrong, if everything's relative?
Again, beware the dangers of relativism - if two people's viewpoints clash, the stronger one is going to trump the weaker. And in this case, Wal-mart would destroy you. >_>
It's easy to say "fear nothing," but in an anarchistic society, you'd likely be murdered in your sleep. If you don't fear death then hey, more power to you. Enjoy your brief life.
I personally would never do that - the whole, "not for the greater good" thing, simply because I'm too entwined with my feelings not to have empathy for other people (to an extent). I know that every other person is a person just like me, and by the means by which I value my life, and know that everyone can contribute as I contribute, every life is precious. I'm a bit of a humanist that way.
By the way, you misused your semicolon there. =P But as you said you were tired in making this post, I suppose we can let it slip~
I was nitpicking with how you were applying my morality wrong, going deeper into that would be confusing and beside the point. The point was that you've been treating relativism as a system when it's really a perspective like optimism or pessimism. It's not Anarchy. People have and always will have different perspectives on what's wrong or right, good or bad. All relativism does is say that is the way it should be, rather than everyone is wrong. It doesn’t mean there should be no law or something, that’s just a possible conclusion you might come to if you believe in it. I don’t care, I’ll just violate it if it gets in the way.
ReplyDeleteI feel I need to address your response to my “don't like it- destroy it” thing. It doesn't really have to do with this, but it kinda annoys me that the stigmas on destruction and creation are the way they are. Destruction is a force equal to creation, and is not somehow inherently bad. To create something new, the old must be cleared away; the world will never be changed if you feed both the annoying and unannoying. The annoying will remain, because you didn’t kill it. Also, in creation it is just as possible to create something annoying as something not annoying, so the inherent goodness it’s associated with doesn’t make sense.
I’m trying to live my life according to me as efficiently as possible, without any contradictions or hypocrisy. Changing the world is a secondary objective, saying it won’t be effective isn’t much of a deterrent, and neither is the idea of punishment.
You misunderstood me, there is a connection to how large companies generally are to how annoying they are, but it’s a likelihood thing, not a rule. Size wasn’t at all important in what I was saying, the annoyingness was. I don’t believe many things are inherent, it comes with the relativism. I can’t accuse Wal-Mart of doing anything wrong. That’s why I haven’t. I, PERSONALLY, disagree with their methods. My opinion matters, so I will try and stop them. Because they ANNOY me. Which y’know, is why I’ve been using that word.
I don’t fear death really, but that sentence had nothing to do with this topic. I also have that empathy, but I value people’s “soul” more than their bodies, so I accept that their perspective is worth something.
I think the ONLY time I have the mental state in which I can reply to your posts is when I’m tired or something, I’m tired.
Rather than drag this out, since I know sooner or later we'll just be beating a dead horse, I'll try to be succinct.
ReplyDeleteRegarding relativism: to an extent I adopt your idea of relativism, but in a much lesser scale. I view the preservation of life as pretty much the ultimate goal, and the betterment of said life as a secondary and possibly a result. Whatever means you have of realizing those, more power to you, but don't cross those. But, that's just me personally... since a relativism where people don't value life is one I can't accept. =/
In a way, I'm like you, in the sense that if I see a law as contributing in no way shape or form to my conception of the "good," I'll ignore it (neutral good mothers), but, I won't sacrifice some otherwise good things to attain a good (killing people for a greater cause is the classic example), although in some respects I do drift to that kind of Chaotic Good.
Now, as to the second major idea: corporations.
That's not precisely what I asked you, although I understand what you're saying here. I'm asking you to justify your beliefs.
Why do you believe Wal-mart is annoying? What in particular of their methods do you disagree with?
If you simply want to support the more local company, that's perfectly fine. If you think they outsource labour ala Nike's rumoured to, you'd have to find proof to satisfy yourself, and then that's valid. If you simply want to say, "Nope, don't like Wal-mart," that's fine, I can't tell you what to shop at. But you can't obscurely draw a curtain of holier-than-thou the-corporations-are-evil-and-must-be-"stopped" rhetoric and be taken seriously without backing yourself up.
Since, while it takes only you to convince yourself, you need more than just a perspective to convince other people, since their perspective is equally as valid as yours.
As to me personally, I'm a huge fan of meritocracy-ing, in the sense of "let the award go to the best." So if I can shop here, or shop here and bankrupt myself in the process, I'll probably go with the cheaper one (assuming fair ethos on both parts). I'm against affirmative action that way. But, again, that's just my personal opinion.
Also, request for a blogpost topic in the future: "What IS humanity, and what does it mean to be human?"
I don't like larger corporations in general just because I'm a huge individualist and think those kinds of powerful structures are kinda stifling for individuals. I know that's not based on any sort of truth, so it's not part of my argument, it just might explain some of my tone.
ReplyDeleteI won't go over the issues of Walmart here, as it was an example and is not what I was trying to address. I know that you should back up what you believe, but this was never really about corporations being bad. All I've said is that SOME corporations are quite annoying and should be looked at. I think that can be agreed with on it's own, that some people are going to find problems with some corporations. I have a feeling this isn't going to satisfy you, but it's what I'm getting from what you wrote.
The rest of your post was very interesting, but I don't think I need to address it.
I can do that, although it will probably be rather short and simple, as my views on humanity are.