The main obstacle that I always think of when it comes to socialism (using the classic factory example) is the need for some kind of leadership and investment to build a new factory.
There's no reason groups can't make decisions as effectively as individuals. People made the same argument with respect to republics versus monarchies, but it seems the republican model has won out.
Corporations do serve an important role in a capitalist society by providing the capital (or taking on the debt) to build expensive things like factories that wouldn't break a profit for many years, and take on that risk (protected as a corporation) without harming the individuals irreparably behind it.
Yeah, but capital is a necessity imposed by capitalism, not an actual requirement for construction. The only thing you really need is labor. Even if you do keep markets, there's no reason that a cooperative can't serve the same role as a corporation.
If the workers owned the factory, they'd need to first come together somehow to propose the need for it
Well, it's not exactly hard to say that "oh, the entire supply of hammers is being consumed. I bet people probably need more hammers".
and then either take on the massive debt in constructing it themselves or (more likely) have the government build it for them.
Or simply give a group of construction workers a share in future earnings, perhaps slightly more than the actual cost of labor and construction to make up for the occasional failed project, until the cost of building it is payed off.
If the factory failed and they had to pay the debt, their lives would be more or less ruined.
As I proposed previously, you could have things built on a contingency basis. No need for debt unless you're successful.
If the government built it, the government would need to somehow make that money back either through the factory's life or through other means
Taxation, obviously. That's how the governments typically pay for things.
With the government invested in a factory (and taxing it), how can you say that the profits are going to the workers and not the government?
Well, if the government owns a factory, then obviously the profits aren't going to the workers. Any sort of government intervention in the economy, however, should be on a strictly nonprofit basis: pay your employees the excess or lower prices if you're making a profit.
but it seems that a socialist society would always devolve into one where the totalitarian state owns all the means of production and the workers derive no benefit
How exactly is that going to happen? A socialist economy doesn't mean the government can just go in and seize property at will. Not to mention that socialist government is necessarily democratic in nature, or it's not socialist.
moving on,
Would you be okay with an owner renting tools to a worker?
Nope. If you're not actually using it, you have no right to deprive others of it.
i-Two people enter a hospital; one healthy, one sick. You may let the sick one die, or harvest the organs of the healthy one to save the sick one.
Let the sick one die, since they're statistically more likely to get sick again in the future, and a society in which we arbitrarily kill one person for the benefit of one other person would cause a lot of anxiety.
Three people enter a hospital; one healthy, two sick. You may let the sick ones die, or harvest the organs of the healthy one to save them both. Is there a minimum ratio of sick people to healthy ratio for you to kill all the healthy ones to save the sick one?
Two is the absolute minimum, but only if the odds of the other two getting sick are sufficiently low, and most importantly, absolutely no-one finds out. That's obviously not a realistic situation, so in reality, let the sick ones die.
You can harvest the organs of an older individual with low life expectancy to save a person with high life expectancy if saved.
I'm just going to make all of these organ harvesting ones contingent on nobody finding out, since the awareness that that was happening would obviously cause a lot of suffering in itself. In that case, yes, do it.
iv-You can harvest the organs of one person with life expectancy thirty years to save four older people with life expectancy ten years if saved.
No. The person with thirty years left to go is still contributing to society, and thus improving the happiness of others more, and thus their death would cause a greater loss in happiness.
You can harvest the organs of two older people with life expectancy ten years to save a person with life expectancy thirty years if saved. Is there a minimum ratio of life expectancy saved to life expectancy sacrificed?
Yes. The person with thirty years left to go, again, has more to contribute to society, and all of their families are going to experience the suffering surrounding their death eventually whether I harvest or not.
You can sacrifice two smokers of life expectancy fifteen years to save three older people of life expectancy ten years.
Possibly, if people knew about it, and knew that it was because they were smokers. On the one hand, killing people like that would upset a lot of people. On the other hand, it might reduce smoking dramatically. I'm leaning towards yes, but I'm really not sure. Plus, the smokers are harming the health of others as they continue to live.
You can sacrifice three older people of life expectancy ten years to save two smokers of life expectancy fifteen years.
No, since it's the inverse of the above, and I've apparently gone with yes on that.
You can sacrifice a drifter with no family or friends to save a person with lots of close friends.
All things being equal and noone finding out, yes, because the latter person is going to give a lot of happiness to other people in that time.
You can sacrifice someone with no family of friends to save a person with lots of dependants.
Yes, for the same reason.
You can sacrifice one person to save two people, each with probability 1/2.
I can't decide, because I'm not sure whether attempting the greatest benefit or trying to avoid the least benefit is better.
You can sacrifice one person to save ten people, each with probability 1/10. If no, what is the minimum number that would have be saved to choose yes?
Same as above. If the aggregate number saved comes out to one, my answer on that is always going to be the same.
A loner with no family or friends wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
Stop them, and then get them psychiatric help.
A loner with no family or friends wants to be killed by another. You can stop it, or let it happen.
Same as above.
An individual with lots of family and friends wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
same
An individual with lots of dependants wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
Once again, the same. I don't think it's possible to be in a situation where it's impossible for life to get better by enough to make it worth living.
You may sacrifice an individual who has committed minor crimes to save an individual with a clean record.
Depends on what the minor crimes are. If it's something I think is admirable, no. If it's something I think is bad, yes. And because I may not have made it clear, I'm going to say that all of the sacrifice ones, except possibly the smokers, is assuming that nobody ever finds out.
You may sacrifice a mass murderer to save an individual with a clean record.
Yes. There's a far greater chance they'll do it again when compared with the other individual
Two people are being denied freedom of speech. You may kill one to liberate the other.
Absolutely not.
Two people are being denied freedom of belief. You may kill one to liberate the other.
Again, no, and neither of those are solely intellectual positions like most of the killing ones. I find that emotionally abhorrent, not just morally wrong.
You may kill one person with life expectancy ten years to increase another's life expectancy by fifteen years. Is there a minimum ratio of gained life expectancy to lost life expectancy for you to do this?
Yes, assuming of course that the beneficiary isn't immortal. Minimum ratio would be just over 1:1.
You may kill one person to provide entertainment for ten others.
No.
You may kill one person to provide entertainment for a billion others. Is there a number of people such that you would kill one person to entertain that many?
No. There's no number of people. The toleration of that sort of culture is only going to lead to more death, and it should be replaced with one where entertainment can be achieved without suffering.
One person is playing a game, and a second does not have a game, but would enjoy the game more if they had it. Do you take the game from the first and give it to the second?
Only if the second person's greater enjoyment outweighs the first person's annoyance with having their game taken
You are playing and enjoying a game, and another person who will enjoy it more wants to play it. Are you obliged to give it to them?
Yes
Does the answer to the previous question change if you particularly like or dislike the other person?
It doesn't change what the right thing is, but it does change how likely I am to do the right thing, simply because I'm a bad person.
Your house has such thin walls that neither you nor your neighbour can play music without the other being forced to listed in it. If your neighbour is not doing anything that requires silence, do you play your music?
I talk to him, find music that we both like, and play that.
If you said yes to the previous one, what about if you know your neighbour does not share your taste in music? If you said no to the previous one, what about if you know your neighbour shares your taste in music?
If he doesn't share it, I don't play it. In my experience, bad music is more unpleasant than good music is pleasant, and unless I go ask him, I can only presume that's true for him too.
If someone is performing an action that you strongly object to but is legal, is it acceptable to try to disrupt that activity? If yes, are you obliged to?
Yes and yes, assuming my objection is morally justified.
If someone often performs actions that you strongly oppose to, is it acceptable to try to disrupt unrelated activities? If yes, are you obliged to?
Only if it inhibits their ability to also do the things I object to, and if so, yes.
If a quality is correlated with people of a certain group, and an individual is a member of that group, in the absence of further information is it acceptable to treat that individual differently based on that attribute (weighted by probability)?
Only as long as the quality, weighted by probability, is more significant than the offense you'll cause and the potential for lost friendship. Generally the answer is no.
At what point in the process from sperm/egg to embryo to foetus to baby to adult does it become acceptable (if at any point) to kill/deny life? At what point (if any) does someone gain the right to permanently alter their body (including harm)?
It's acceptable to kill an embryo from the start, and becomes unacceptable at the point the portions of the brain outside the brainstem begin to develop. People can permanently alter their body in ways that don't cause harm(and I don't mean just physical harm) at any point, though there are very few of those. People should never alter their bodies in harmful ways.
Does an individual have the right to say things that another may consider inappropriate? If so, do they have the right to an audience? Does an individual have the right to ignore the speech of another? What if the speech includes things that are demonstrably false?
Yes, because a society that doesn't tolerate free speech has worse side effects that outweigh the benefit of avoiding offense. No, they don't have the right to an audience: forcing people to listen to something has similarly undesirable effects to preventing free speech. You can absolutely ignore others, unless what they're saying is something along the lines of "I'm going to shoot this person in the face".
Does an individual have the right to keep a secret from another? What if the act of keeping the secret may cause harm?
Yes, no.
Does an individual have the right to own a pet? If yes, does an individual have the right to own a slave? If no, does an individual have the right to own a non-human creature of significant mental capacity?
As long as they treat it, in moral terms, like a person. No, because slavery implies forced, unpaid labor, which causes suffering. Yes, again, as long as it's happy.
Does an individual have the obligation to raise their children? Does an individual have the right to raise their children as they wish? Do they have the right to have children? What if they are not able to properly provide for children?
Yes, but not any more so than they have an obligation to protect any individual who needs help. No, not if what they're doing is objectively harmful. Yes, so long as the earth has sufficient carrying capacity and they don't have genetic disorders that will cause the child to live a horrible life. If they can't provide for them, they still have the right to have children, so long as they can ensure that the children are provided for by someone.
Does an individual (not government) have the right to claim another's property if it is unused and will foreseeably remain unused? What if it is being used, but less efficiently that it could be?
Yes. yes, but only in a situation where the individual whose property is seized can still live a comfortable life, and resources are scarce enough that the increased efficiency will improve people's quality of life.
Does an individual selling a good or service have the right to charge what they want? Does this change in the presence/absence of competition? Does this change if the good/service is/isn't essential?
No, no, no. There are lots of stupid people, and that just gives the competent evil ones license to manipulate them for their own benefit.
Does an individual have the right to believe what they want? What if this includes beliefs that can be proven to be logically inconsistent? What if this results in actions that impede or prevent the individual's goals?
Yes, beliefs don't matter, only actions. Only so long as they don't act on those beliefs. Depends on what the goals are, but assuming they're moral, no, not that you can stop it.
Does an individual have the right to associate with whatever groups they wish to? What if already existing members of a group do not wish to associate with them? What if the group in question provides a danger to the individual or another individual?
No, some organizations, like the Nazi Party and Al-Qaeda, should not be tolerated. No, being around someone you don't want to be around typically causes more suffering than being around someone you want to be around causes happiness. No.
Do individuals have the right to demand that others accommodate their deviations (deviations meant in a technical and nonoffensive manner)? Does this change if the deviation is physical or mental? Does this change if the deviation is voluntary or involuntary?
Only so long as the accommodations produce more happiness in the recipient than they remove in the providers.
Phew, that was long.
Author
Topic: Human rights discussion (Read 1645 times)