If I drink myself raw milk or serve the milk. IF the person or I gets sick. Who is to blame? The seller? Me? or does the person I serve it to accept the risks?
Why is it relevant? Whether there is someone to blame or not is besides the point. If there is a source of milk that is causing sickness to consumers that source will likely go out of business. Finger pointing, which to me sounds like a desire for legal action, is unecessary. If your food makes people sick you'll go out of business. There exists market incentives for milk producers to produce clean milk. Legal incentives are unecessary as is the finger pointing.
If you buy and drink paint, and get sick, who is responsible?
Only if a responsibility is agreed to, does it stand.
Seriously? Milton Friedman?
Well, I've learned something. If the power company turns off my electricity it is not their fault at all. Even though there is some person downtown that flips a switch, pulls a lever, hits a few keys, whatever that turns off my power it is not their resposibility or action whatsoever.
JJ, I'm curious, are you an existentialist?
Birthday Pony:If the power company turns off my electricity it is not their fault at all. Even though there is some person downtown that flips a switch, pulls a lever, hits a few keys, whatever that turns off my power it is not their resposibility or action whatsoever.
Your missing the point. Your so caught up on finding out whos fault it is that you stopped working on getting your lights back on. How is that rational? Unless your self interests are to verbally abuse the person at fault(Which serves no one).
If your concern here is getting your lights back on than finding the person at fault is pointless. Take your money and your time to a business you can trust. Put your money where your mouth simply put.
Birthday Pony:Seriously? Milton Friedman?
What about him?
1) The question was about the man living or dying, not about whether his lights were on.
2) You pay for someone else to provide you electricity. You could generate it yourself. Or live without it. Like half the population does today. Or like 100% of the population from the history of the world until only about 100 years ago. But instead you choose to purchase it from someone else. You refusing to pay for it any more is just the same as you refusing ride your bicycle generator any more. You're going to say that just because you happen to outsource your electricy generation, that when you stop providing the resources necessary to maintain that flow, the electricity shouldn't stop just the same as if you never rode your cycle again?
3) I'm curious as to what exactly you're suggesting should be done in the case of someone not paying for goods and services. It sounds like you're suggesting people should just get goods and services regardless of whether they create them or trade for them themselves...that others are just obligated to provide them.
BP, I'm curious, are you a socialist?
a) That has to be one of the most nebulous terms in the English language. You'll need to define it.
b) What makes you ask that?
IF the person or I gets sick. Who is to blame? The seller? Me? or does the person I serve it to accept the risks?
Contract or it didn't happen. :P
When you buy things, caveat emptor on you unless there is a contract. When you serve things, caveat emptor on the drinker unless there is a contract.
"The question was about the man living or dying, not about whether his lights were on."
Yes, but if we are considering the case as it was laid out in the video, basically if his power is shut off then he dies, and the answer Friedman gave then we are talking about actions on the part of the power company.
"a) That has to be one of the most nebulous terms in the English language. You'll need to define it."
Do you, like existentialist philosophers, believe that humans have free will or agency?
"b) What makes you ask that?"
Assuming you more or less agree with the answer given by Friedman, which you may not, then saying the blame does not rest on the power company or an individual in the power company brings up a dilemma if you believe humans have agency.
If we examine the situation as it's laid out in the video (if the power goes out this man dies, if it stays on he lives), then there is most certainly responsibility on the side of the person operating that switch. At the moment they are ordered to turn off his power, they have a choice to make. They can choose whether or not to turn the power off.
Even if the man does not die and it's just a matter of providing electricity, at every instant, despite whatever contract was signed, the person has a choice about whether or not they will honor their contract, turn the power off or not. Even if the old man's power being shut off is just a factor in his death, to claim that the power company is just an inhuman entity that has no other option than to operate on numbers is simply a way of deflecting responsibility for the actions of those involved in the company to those who contract with it. That is not to say that those who contract with them have no choice either. However, the responsibility does not lie on one side or the other. Provided the scenario in the video, this old man will die without power, it seems as though an operator somewhere in the power comapny's building has some responsibility in the matter.
I am not trying to provide an alternative. Just bringing up my problems with claiming that responsibility does not lie with those involved at the company.
Does the contract say that they will always provide power or just 99% of the time?
It says they'll provide power if you pay. However, contracts do not negate one's agency.
Someone said they would prosecute the parents if raw milk was fed to a child and something happened to the child. I pretty much facepalmed. But it did get me thinking on what constitutes agression.
There was a case in China where they literally made edible plastic eggs. You break it and the egg looks exactly like a real egg. It even cooks like one.
The way I reason it, the approach would be false advertising. If the person claims salmonella free, and gets sick from that disease. THen there is fault.
I am look for blame because my property rights were allegedly violated. Trying to deterime under what conditions given the situation where my rights were violated.
Birthday Pony: "The question was about the man living or dying, not about whether his lights were on." Yes, but if we are considering the case as it was laid out in the video, basically if his power is shut off then he dies, and the answer Friedman gave then we are talking about actions on the part of the power company. "a) That has to be one of the most nebulous terms in the English language. You'll need to define it." Do you, like existentialist philosophers, believe that humans have free will or agency? "b) What makes you ask that?" Assuming you more or less agree with the answer given by Friedman, which you may not, then saying the blame does not rest on the power company or an individual in the power company brings up a dilemma if you believe humans have agency. If we examine the situation as it's laid out in the video (if the power goes out this man dies, if it stays on he lives), then there is most certainly responsibility on the side of the person operating that switch. At the moment they are ordered to turn off his power, they have a choice to make. They can choose whether or not to turn the power off. Even if the man does not die and it's just a matter of providing electricity, at every instant, despite whatever contract was signed, the person has a choice about whether or not they will honor their contract, turn the power off or not. Even if the old man's power being shut off is just a factor in his death, to claim that the power company is just an inhuman entity that has no other option than to operate on numbers is simply a way of deflecting responsibility for the actions of those involved in the company to those who contract with it. That is not to say that those who contract with them have no choice either. However, the responsibility does not lie on one side or the other. Provided the scenario in the video, this old man will die without power, it seems as though an operator somewhere in the power comapny's building has some responsibility in the matter. I am not trying to provide an alternative. Just bringing up my problems with claiming that responsibility does not lie with those involved at the company.
I do not agree with lumping the notion of "free will" in with being an "existentialist", as well as "existentialist philosophers"...however I believe people have the ability to freely choose their actions.
I find it very interesting that you can write all of that and yet completely ignore the most important points of my post...namely #2, #3, and the final question.
1) Are you going to say that just because you happen to outsource your electricy generation, that when you stop providing the resources necessary to maintain that flow, the electricity shouldn't stop just the same as if you never rode your bicycle generator again?
2) Are you a socialist?
"1) Are you going to say that just because you happen to outsource your electricy generation, that when you stop providing the resources necessary to maintain that flow, the electricity shouldn't stop just the same as if you never rode your bicycle generator again?"
That is completely irrelevant to the point I am discussing, and no, I am not. What I am picking at is Friedman's assertion that the power company or someone there is void of responsibility.
"2) Are you a socialist?"
Sure am.
"I believe people have the ability to freely choose their actions."
Then there's a problem if you agree with Friedman's assertion that the power company has no responsibility in the matter. Self-ownership, to use terms more widely accepted here, is not a one time deal. It is not just in effect at the moment of contract, but at every point before and thereafter. It is inalienable. If its in alienable, then all actions, no matter their relationship to any contract, are wholly those of the actor, and no one but the actor can be held reponsible for them. At the moment the power was shut off there was an action on the side of the power company. That is not to say it was not a predictable action or one that lay outside of the contract, but that someone made a decision when they could have just as freely not.
Birthday Pony: "1) Are you going to say that just because you happen to outsource your electricy generation, that when you stop providing the resources necessary to maintain that flow, the electricity shouldn't stop just the same as if you never rode your bicycle generator again?" That is completely irrelevant to the point I am discussing, and no, I am not. What I am picking at is Friedman's assertion that the power company or someone there is void of responsibility. "2) Are you a socialist?" Sure am. "I believe people have the ability to freely choose their actions." Then there's a problem if you agree with Friedman's assertion that the power company has no responsibility in the matter. Self-ownership, to use terms more widely accepted here, is not a one time deal. It is not just in effect at the moment of contract, but at every point before and thereafter. It is inalienable. If its in alienable, then all actions, no matter their relationship to any contract, are wholly those of the actor, and no one but the actor can be held reponsible for them. At the moment the power was shut off there was an action on the side of the power company. That is not to say it was not a predictable action or one that lay outside of the contract, but that someone made a decision when they could have just as freely not.
Notice how you had to acknowledge (multiple times in fact) that the only way you have a single thing to say about any of this is if you assume the (as you admitted) false notion that "no electricity = death".
"Notice how you had to acknowledge (multiple times in fact) that the only way you have a single thing to say about any of this is if you assume the (as you admitted) false notion that 'no electricity = death'."
No, I didn't notice that.
Meanwhile, a few posts up: "Even if the man does not die and it's just a matter of providing electricity, at every instant, despite whatever contract was signed, the person has a choice about whether or not they will honor their contract, turn the power off or not."
No matter what the result, even if the man's power is shut off providing him with a greater insight into his being and the nature of modern civilization causing him to move to Tibet and live a long, simple, and happy life as a monk, there is action and therefore responsibility on the side of the power company.
Birthday Pony:if we are considering the case as it was laid out in the video, basically if his power is shut off then he dies...
Birthday Pony:If we examine the situation as it's laid out in the video (if the power goes out this man dies, if it stays on he lives)
Birthday Pony:"Notice how you had to acknowledge (multiple times in fact) that the only way you have a single thing to say about any of this is if you assume the (as you admitted) false notion that 'no electricity = death'." No, I didn't notice that.
Ignoring that I acknowledged that the scenario need not be that the man died*...
Are you able to reconcile your belief that people both have agency and that the power company was not in some capacity responsible?
*my second post, 12th line: "Even if the man does not die and it's just a matter of providing electricity, at every instant, despite whatever contract was signed, the person has a choice about whether or not they will honor their contract, turn the power off or not."
Birthday Pony:Ignoring that I acknowledged that the scenario need not be that the man died*...
Only by veering the course the point you were implying, which is why I didn't find it necessary to address that part. And again, it's all irrelevant if you aren't suggesting anything be done differently, which you directly confirmed you weren't doing. So, here again, in another thread, you have no real point, it just appears you're looking to argue.
Because we all know a problem with reasoning doesn't effect the outcome or similar cases.
Call me crazy, but it sounds more like you can't reconcile the two oppositional beliefs you hold. Unless you can explain to me otherwise I'm fine accepting that that's the case.
Regardless of whether or not I'm offering an alternative, the answer given by Friedman directly contradicts the implications of self-ownership. People are not in fct responsible for their actions once they sign a contract and have no free will to do as they please. Whether or not I have a solution, that seems like a pretty gaping hole in your philosophy.
Birthday Pony:Because we all know a problem with reasoning doesn't effect the outcome or similar cases.
huh?
Call me crazy, but it sounds more like you can't reconcile the two oppositional beliefs you hold.
Okay. You're crazy. I hold no oppositional beliefs.
Friedman asked "is it really the responsibility [of those at the electric company]? Should I blame [them for the man dying]?" Your entire argument is rooted in claiming Friedman said the electric company is not responsible for shutting down the electricity. He said no such thing. The only reason the case was brought up was because the man died. Friedman posed the question of who is ultimately to blame for the (supposed) tragedy of the man's death (of course it is only a supposed tragedy because for all we know the man died of natural causes). Here again, you have absolutely no point unless you assume the fallacious view that "no electricity = death".
And this fallaciousness aside, one has to really appreciate the irony of a self-proclaimed socialist talking about gaping holes in philosophies.
He went on to a hypothetical where the power company never shuts off the power, to say that the power company is an inhuman entity, and that responsibility would lie completely outside of the power company to prove that it still does not have any responsibility, no matter the case.
If I was born with lactose intolerance and I drink raw milk with chocolate syrup and then get sick, who is to blame?
Why, God is to blame of course for making me without the ability to resist chocolate!
I drink and serve raw milk to my kids, by the way. It tastes better and I trust it more. I own shares in a cow.
Birthday Pony,
Let's change the senario slightly and see if you still adhere to the same position. You are a vegan. I am an organic farmer. I grow the best most nutritional organic produce and will deliver it to your door. You contract with me to provide you with all the food you need, delivered fresh to your door each week. My time and resources are limited. Six months go by and you have always paid on time. Then one week you do not pay me for the food I delivered. You still eat the food. The next week the same thing happens. Afte you stiff me on the thrid week I refuse to deliver food on the fourth week. You die of starvation three weeks later. Who is to blame?
I reckon it would be wrong if you positively misrepresented to the consumer that it was pasteurised - by advertising it as such, or lying when asked - and if the cause of their sickness or whatever would most likely not have occurred if it had been pasteurised.
For my death, primarily me assuming that I could find other resources and understood your terms, but that's quite a radical shift from the hypothetical that Friedman and that hippy are going by.
If I didn't pay once, and we assume that no food = a fairly instant death, then it's a little closer to the one in the video. And while I would still say blame primarily lies with me, you are not free from taking part in it.
Now if we extend the hypothetical, and say that you have a policy of never stopping food delivery, I would not argue that my neighbors or your other customers are the only ones to blame for your lack of resources or the high cost. You are also to blame for having that policy.
Humans are more than number crunching cyborgs, and given enough thought they can choose to do things that don't make sense economically. I think that while it is likely that few people would pay a power company that never shuts off the power if that happened tomorrow, it is not impossible to see such a case in the near future.
Just finished a glass myself