So let's say a country has slavery (I mean real slavery, not the left's "slavery" of sweatshops), and the slaves produce almost all the goods for export from that country. Is it moral to buy the goods made from slave labor?
Edit: Here is a clearer presentation of the problem-- If it is immoral/unethical for B to coerce A into producing cotton, is it immoral/unethical for C to purchase cotton from B if B coerced A into producing the cotton? (C knows that B coerced A into producing the cotton.)
There is no objectively justifying human action.
Is it consistent with X's subjective opinion of his view of morals? Maybe. Maybe not.
Subjectivism and moral relativity are both cop outs of a response.
Do you mean according to the NAP?
I don't think it would be,but libertarian ethics / the NAP isn't really my thing.
One might make a utilitarian type case that some money going into a system is better than no money going into a system. once again though, not really my thing
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I'm interested in any ideas from any ethical/moral viewpoint from any branch of libertarianism. Yes, that includes a lot which is what I'm going for.
These kinds of questions aren't my thing either, but I'd like to see what other people had to say.
Subjectivism regarding morals is a brute fact. Call it a "cop out" if you like, simply because the facts end an otherwise "fun" debate (read: willfully blind circle jerk).
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm just going for truth, so I'm not really interested in whether people feel the truth is a cop out compared to a fun lie.
@OP: I think it's immoral in the sense of human decency - every decent person should refuse to buy from this country. However, I think that the market will always chase the lowest price, regardless of what is decent, and people will purchase from this country anyway. The key is to locate who has the power to alter the state of affairs - a point that is commonly neglected in most public policy debate. The buyers are not the ones with the power to alter the state of affairs, each buyer represents a tiny fraction of the slave-country's revenues. Rather, it is the political establishment of the slave-country itself.
Finally, it is crucial to note that this is a wholly fabricated concern. The closest thing to an actual slave-country on the planet today is North Korea. The economic consequences of running a national slave-colony are utterly predictable and, of course, empirically demonstrated in NK. In other words, rampant abuse leads to economic stagnation which leads to market marginalization, not market dominance.
Clayton -
Sat. 12/07/14 14:36 EDT.post #219 SirTenenbaum:So let's say a country has slavery (I mean real slavery, not the left's "slavery" of sweatshops), and the slaves produce almost all the goods for export from that country. Is it moral to buy the goods made from slave labor?This question confuses me. What do you mean by "real slavery"? Is that the situation in which a worker isn't allowed to keep 100% of his income? Or is it something "more" than that?At what point does being forcefully deprived of one's income, on a regular, institutional basis, become "real" slavery?
SirTenenbaum:So let's say a country has slavery (I mean real slavery, not the left's "slavery" of sweatshops), and the slaves produce almost all the goods for export from that country. Is it moral to buy the goods made from slave labor?
While I agree with you more than disagree with you on your view of ethics (i am a moral nihilist / amoral / noncognative / refuse normatives/ etc)), it' defeats the purpose of a thread like this to go "meta" on the topic. It's best just to enter "meta" threads about morality than more specific focuses,as it will end up confusing too much / straying off topic.
In this case, the OP was probably already under the assumption of morals or an existing liberarian framwork of morality for example
What do you mean by "real slavery"?
You really have no clue what he was getting at? I did. In the traditions of slavery outside of leftism (wage slavery, and other stupid categories) under what customs were cultures and law calling people slaves? Get that general picture in your head, and use that.
I wasn't wanting to talk about economic consequences. I was wanting to get to the ethics of the situation. If we accept something like the NAP, then no one has the right to coerce somebody else into producing something for them (slavery).
But what about when somebody else has a slave who produces goods and then wants to sell you the goods their slave coercibly produced? That's what I'm getting at. Is right to engage in trade where the goods were produced by slave labor?
SirTenenbaum,
Rothbard wrote an article, Living in a State-Run World. While it may not answer your question exactly, I think it will certainly point you in a direction that will help you answer it.
Sat. 12/07/14 16:08 EDT.post #220 vive la insurrection:What do you mean by "real slavery"? You really have no clue what he was getting at? I did. In the traditions of slavery outside of leftism (wage slavery, and other stupid categories) under what customs were cultures and law calling people slaves? Get that general picture in your head, and use that.After doing so, I can see no meaningful difference, vis-à-vis the question, between that picture, and our current reality, hence my (unanswered) question "At what point does being forcefully deprived of one's income, on a regular, institutional basis, become "real" slavery?"Either one answers the question by providing some point, or one answers the question by saying "There is no point, it's all 'real' slavery."In the first case, it's incumbent on the questioner to explain 1. How and why the two categories of slavery (i.e. "real" and "other") created by this point are meaningfully different, and more specifically,2. Why the question is only asked with respect to one category, and not the other.In the second case, one realizes that all productive labor, since it is taxed, is slave labor, and the question can be simplified to:"Is it moral to buy goods?"
vive la insurrection:What do you mean by "real slavery"? You really have no clue what he was getting at? I did. In the traditions of slavery outside of leftism (wage slavery, and other stupid categories) under what customs were cultures and law calling people slaves? Get that general picture in your head, and use that.
SirTenenbaum:If we accept something like the NAP, then no one has the right to coerce
IF one person doesn't accept the NAP > THEN, in this case, what gives you the right to act upon him as though he has accepted it?
The problem isn't in justifying rights according to the NAP, the problem is in justifying retaliation against people who don't accept it.
I'm talking about slavery similar to what there was in the southern states of the United States before the Civil War where some people were other people's property and worked on plantations and produced cotton because they were forced to by their owners--there was no voluntary choice on the part of the slaves.
The difference is that slaves (in my forming of the question) are forced to produce goods (think slaves in the southern U.S. or in Brazil). Governments taxing us is a form of coercion where we choose what we want to produce, and the government comfiscates a part of it.
If it is immoral/unethical for B to coerce A into producing the cotton, is it moral/ethical for C to purchase cotton from B if B coerced A into producing the cotton? (C knows that B coerced A into producing the cotton.)
(If you reject morals, ethics, etc. then you don't need to worry about jumping in).
My point is that libertarians apply 'subjectivism' to anything and everything. You call it a fact. Yes, it is a fact in real world economic sense. One cannot have any intellectual discourse with a libertarians just say "oh, subjectivism. case closed" in every instance.
Morality? "Subjectivism."
Justice? "Subjectivism. Duh, idiot"
Market? "Subjectivism. Whatever, fuck you!"
{Inset normative inquiry} "Subjectivism."
It is starting to be a less and less applicable answer to social inquiry.
I also fail to recognize how libertarians can just say "subjectivism" and think that this is the answer that people are wanting elaborated upon. People should just know any question they pose on these borads will draw out "subjectivism" as a response to everything. It is a cop out because it fails to ever reveal anything deeper about culture. But, I suppose the whole concept of culture is negated with the claim of subjectivism, huh?
The circle jerk is the group douche bags that think they can apply "subjectivism" in every thread and think they are helping further intellectual discourse.
This is why I don't like nihilists as well. They are moral-less and have the potential for infinite selfishness in my mind. Why bother with logic and emotion if it is a priori or subjective?
I don't buy this either since "subjectivism!" denies meaningful group discussion of relativistic norms. They do exist. No matter where they come from. Every culture currently has them and has always had them. Denying them is antisocial and almost childish. Denying them is a why of writing off everyone else's thoughts or feelings as irrelevant. But, wait, you have feelings as well (as a relativist/nihilist, etc.). Where can "respect" even come from?
If it is immoral for gravity to shoot paper airplanes from the carpet, is it immoral to fly on those airplanes? (The flying spaghetti monster knows my radio is a space station.)
Oh wait, if the premise is unfounded the whole debate is pointless...
If it is immoral/unethical for B to coerce A into producing the cotton, is it moral/ethical for C to purchase cotton from B if B coerced A into producing the cotton? (C knows that B coerced A into producing the cotton.) If it is immoral for gravity to shoot paper airplanes from the carpet, is it immoral to fly on those airplanes? (The flying spaghetti monster knows my radio is a space station.)
A collection of non sequiturs, none of which address my criticism of your blanket use of subjectivism as the negation of all social inquiriy.
Ah, but you explain nothing.
Once again the 'subjective intellect' shines its bald head.
I mean, c'mon, hashem (Rothbard avatar) how can you even truly justify NAP?
The necessity of social ethics (individual morality) is what predicates the NAP as a legitimate social institution. Subjective morality and/or ethics precede and defeat the function of NAP.
Rothbard's NAP is based on property rights, not morality or ethics. So, if we set property rights aside, can we justify NAP on ethical or moral foundations if we are accounting for subjective preferences?
I don't think we can in a uniform manner.
Aristophanes: hashem:Oh wait, if the premise is unfounded the whole debate is pointless... Ah, but you explain nothing. Once again the 'subjective intellect' shines its bald head.
hashem:Oh wait, if the premise is unfounded the whole debate is pointless...
The burden to explain the absurd is on the guy bringing it up. I'm not an absolute subjectivist, I've never even been accused of subjectivism, but I prefer to at least start with reality. That said I'll check out your post above.
Thank you for your input, but I'm not interested in what you're trying to bring to the table. If you want to, put on your Rothbard cop and argue a position about the ethical or unethical nature of C engaging in such a transaction. If not, then I think you're done.
My question again to all readers:
If it is immoral/unethical for B to coerce A into producing cotton, is it immoral/unethical for C to purchase the cotton from B if B coerced A into producing the cotton? (C knows that B coerced A into producing the cotton.)
I didn't even see your edit. Or realize that when hasem used it is was your quote and not part of a response from him.
Having said that, your bold question is a specific situation where C will encourage B to coerce A into further production. Purchasing things with the knowledge of the coercion is the equivalent of working for B yourself.
I'm also going to continue to point out that subjectivism (more specifically, relativism, and more poignantly, nihilism) broadly applied to anything but property rights, will yield the rejection of "'natural law' and reason" as Rothbard describes it.
So, the abstractions of philosophy are meritless in inquiry if subjectivism is applied broadly. Everyone is basically a philosopher of life/action/ethics/epistemology if this is the case. There must be limits to the use of subjectivism. Especially for libertarian social/political theory/philosophy.
My point is that libertarians apply 'subjectivism' to anything and everything. You call it a fact. My signature, to always "challenge the premise", has served me well. We can see you start with a red herring. If your point is about libertarians applying subjectivism to "everything", then that has nothing to do with my response to your response to my original statement. I was saying morals are, as a matter of objective fact, subjective concepts. I do not claim to be a "subjectivist" or to propose "subjectivism" as the response to anything/everything. If you want to challenge what I actually have to say in context, fine, but I only even used the term "subjectivism" once, in a response to you in a limited context because you brought the word up.
[Subjectivism] is a cop out because it fails to ever reveal anything deeper about culture. I don't even know that I present subjectivism as an answer, here, or ever. I think we can get consistent answers, however, which actually reveal valuable truth, if we start with reality. Morals are subjective, so we shouldn't pretend anything else just to have a fun debate. We shouldn't be lazy for fun just because actually going through the hard work of solving problems given reality seems frustrating. The equation in my mind goes: "Morality is subjective, and we do have to exist in reality which means this that and the other thing, therefore....."
They do exist...Denying them is antisocial and almost childish. BRILLIANT! Acknowledge reality > figure things out from there. They DO exist. So where do we go from there. The answer is probably for another thread. My response in this thread, that morals are subjective and therefore the premise is absurd, has relevance.
They are moral-less and have the potential for infinite selfishness I don't see what's wrong with being infinitely selfish. The more you can perfect your own life, the more resources you will have to help others, and also the less imperfect (and the less potential for evil) you will be.
Geez this is getting confusing. My post about not contributing was meant for hasem, not you.
"Having said that, your bold question is a specific situation where C will encourage B to coerce A into further production."
Yes that's true. I'm with you there.
"Purchasing things with the knowledge of the coercion is the equivalent of working for B yourself."
I don't understand at all what you mean. How would C be working for B if C bought the good B forcibly made A produce?i
The question anyway is whether it's moral or not for C to purchase the good B forcibly made A produce.
My signature, to always "challenge the premise"
You read these boards. You aren't the only uber clever kid using it as a way to elevate your intellects ego. "Your whole premise is flawed...subjectivism...:*smirk* - it's not that clever.
We can see you start with a red herring. If your point is about libertarians applying subjectivism to "everything", then that has nothing to do with my response to your response to my original statement
Nonsense. I say "everything" as "ethics" (the OP) is a subset of "everything." It is not a red herring, but a generalization that i later equated with the use of the concept on these boards overall (an example of my point, not a red herring).
If you want to challenge what I actually have to say in context, fine, but I only even used the term "subjectivism" once, in a response to you in a limited context because you brought the word up.
What context? Your first post was all of three setences
Except owning property, huh? Your premise is flawed, not mine.
I don't even know that I present subjectivism as an answer, here, or ever.
Then I am done conversing with you...
...implies "subjective perception" as the base justification for (any old) human action. Jesus...
I think we can get consistent answers, however, which actually reveal valuable truth, if we start with reality.
The "reality" that property rights is the only legitimate perspective of ethics or morality so as to justify the broad application of subjectivism?
Morals are subjective, so we shouldn't pretend anything else just to have a fun debate.
No one is saying that that is not a true statment.
But, in society, people abide by morals other than their own from time to time. "Why?" would be an illegitimate or irrelevant question with 'subjective morality and ethics' applied everywhere. Ultimately it leads one to think that social ethics ( a term for when abide by morals other than their own from time to time) is relativistic. Which means that people's worth or value of property rights will vary from person to person (whether this is in their interest or not) and also implies that ethics and morals precede property rights in people's action sequence (decision making process).
I am wondering if NAP can be justified in light of this.
So, I will copy the relevant paragraphs from my posts and put them in another thread.
I think my response is pertinent to this one as well.
I don't see what's wrong with being infinitely selfish.
But, society does. Why? Jealousy? Religion? Perceptoin? Historical evolution (ha)?
The more you can perfect your own life, the more resources you will have to help others, and also the less imperfect (and the less potential for evil) you will be.
Debateable.
the less imperfect (and the less potential for evil) you will be.
I notice you go with a "potential scale" here. For the evil that people could be.
the more resources you will have to help others
...but do not include a "potential scale" here. You see, people can potentially be evil if they have a lot of things as well. You acknowledge above that people have a "potential" to be 'imperfect and evil'.
The slider goes both ways, not only in the favor of good and light.
In the real world, essentially, you are asking if much of globalized trade is ethical.
I've heard people say that by buying the slave produced products you may help the slave owner to improve working conditions et al. I have heard others argue that you encourage the exploitation of others (as you are only an indirect participant and not coercing people yourself).
Saturday, July 14, 2012 18:15 EDT.post #221 SirTenenbaum:If it is immoral/unethical for B to coerce A into producing the cotton, is it moral/ethical for C to purchase cotton from B if B coerced A into producing the cotton? (C knows that B coerced A into producing the cotton.)Okay, thanks for answering my question.Your answer is "case 1," which means I'd now like you to show:1. How and why the two categories of slavery (i.e. "real" and "other") created by this point are meaningfully different, and more specifically,2. Why the question is only asked with respect to one category, and not the other.If you won't do this, then the best answer I can muster is not an absolute "yes" or "no," but rather a conditional answer. Here it is:It is just as moral/ethical (or immoral/unethical)for C to purchase cotton from B if B coerced A into producing the cotton (C knows that B coerced A into producing the cotton)as for C to purchase cotton**cotton, income from the production of which was taxed,namely, all cotton,so just "cotton."
SirTenenbaum:If it is immoral/unethical for B to coerce A into producing the cotton, is it moral/ethical for C to purchase cotton from B if B coerced A into producing the cotton? (C knows that B coerced A into producing the cotton.)
yes it's immoral to purchase the product of slave labor
if noone purchased it, there would not be slave labor.
both c and b are violating a
switch it to sex traffic
is it immoral to buy sex from a pimp who has sex slaves?
yes
noone buys, noone engages in the violation
Often, people say that those who work in sweatshops are slaves. I say sweatshop workers are not slaves because they voluntarily choose to be in the sweatshops. A slave is somebody who is involuntarily put to work.
I define slave as someone who is put to work by someone else involuntarily.
Sat. 12/07/14 18:56 EDT.post #222 SirTenenbaum:I define slave as someone who is put to work by someone else involuntarily.So, a person kept locked in someone else's basement wouldn't qualify as "a slave," but only "a prisoner."According to your definition, then, a slave is just a subset of the set of people called "prisoners."The prisoner only becomes a specific type of prisoner called "slave" when the prisoner is also forced to work (you didn't specify that the work need be productive).
SirTenenbaum:I define slave as someone who is put to work by someone else involuntarily.
It wasn't for me about the economics either. That was rather a real life context where political institutions including slavery and it's results come into effect. And yes, it was about the politcal and moral consequences of that.
I think that is a valid question. The first question would be to ask: Is it ethical to purchase chocolate made in a slave labor setting? Of course one would also see where to draw exactly the line, since that produce of slave labor may be several trades away from you as well.
Look at my edit in the first post restating the question. I hope it's clear. If it's not to you, I'm uninterested in clarifying it.
Perhaps you missed my post here, but the Rothbard article I link to is about a topic that is fairly analogous to what you are asking. Have you had a chance to read it yet?
Sat. 12/07/14 19:53 EDT.post #223Also, note that a man who is forced to work but allowed to keep 100% of his product also qualifies as "slave," according to your definition.With respect to this question, for me, there isn't any meaningful difference between forcing a man to work and then robbing him of his product, and allowing a man to work and then robbing him of his product.Both methods of acquiring wealth employ "the political means": "the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others for the benefit of the dominating class"; both are immoral/unethical.Forcing a man to work and letting him keep his product is also immoral/unethical.Your question addresses one of four possible combinations, namely:0. Allowed to work/allowed to keep his product. (freedom)1. Forced to work/allowed to keep his product. (slavery 1)2. Forced to work/forced to surrender his product. (slavery 2)3. Allowed to work/forced to surrender his product. (slavery 3, also called "taxation")So, I reiterate my earlier request. Could you please show:1. How and why the two categories of slavery (i.e. slavery 2 and slavery 3) created by this point are meaningfully different, and more specifically,2. Why the question is only asked with respect to one category (i.e. slavery 2), and not the other(s).The thing I'm trying to get you to think about here is that the name you give to any non-freedom category is irrelevant with respect to your question. What is relevant is that it's a non-freedom category. Why should engaging in trade of goods produced from one non-freedom category be any more or less "moral" than engaging in trade of goods produced from another non-freedom category?
Your question is essentially this:Is it moral to knowingly buy stolen goods?
Sat. 12/07/14 20:21 EDT.post #224Here's another thing to think about, in light of Malachi's answer, above; consider this hypothetical situation:A new prison program is introduced. Prisoners are forced to work. Part of the profits from their forced labor are used to both reduce the taxpayer burden of imprisoning them, and also to reimburse their victims.Malachi is outraged by this, since he feels it's immoral to buy stolen goods, so he organizes a massive, nation-wide boycott of prisoner-produced products. The boycott is astoundingly successful, and not a single prisoner-produced product is purchased. As a result, the program is dropped, victims are not reimbursed, and innocent taxpayers must return to paying for imprisoning criminals.Question: Is this moral?
Sat. 12/07/14 20:38 EDT.post #225 Malachi:Yes, because the incarceration itself is immoral, ...Interesting. This is tantamount to asserting that forcing criminals to repay their victims is immoral. Malachi:... anything to increase the burden of incarceration on those who enable and support it is a good thing.And in this case, the innocent taxpayers enable and support it, so increasing their burden is "a good thing"?
Malachi:Yes, because the incarceration itself is immoral, ...
Malachi:... anything to increase the burden of incarceration on those who enable and support it is a good thing.
MMMark: Interesting. This is tantamount to asserting that forcing criminals to repay their victims is immoral.
Interesting. This is tantamount to asserting that forcing criminals to repay their victims is immoral.
Malachi is more than capable of responding, but I will respond anyway:
No, it is not equivalent.
MMMark: And in this case, the innocent taxpayers enable and support it, so increasing their burden is "a good thing"?
And in this case, the innocent taxpayers enable and support it, so increasing their burden is "a good thing"?
Incarceration is typically contrary to actual justice. If A murders B, instead of forcing A to compensate the family of B, we make B's family pay to house, cloth, and feed A for X number of years.
That is justice? I want no part in it.
Sat. 12/07/14 21:03 EDT.post #226 gotlucky:No, it is not equivalent.Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it. I'd appreciate your elaboration.The way I see it, in order for the victim to be reimbursed, the criminal will have to produce. This leaves only slavery 2, which means he must also be a prisoner, since a slave is just a subset of the set of people called "prisoners."
gotlucky:No, it is not equivalent.
gotlucky:Incarceration is typically contrary to actual justice. If A murders B, instead of forcing A to compensate the family of B, we make B's family pay to house, cloth, and feed A for X number of years.That is justice? I want no part in it.