Somebody is paying him to do that job, which means it's a benefit to at least one member of society, the guy who's paying him. That's instant and clear proof that the work he is doing has value.
a problem i have with free market,,,, is all the jobs,,, ( which are suppose to be a part of the whole,, which benefits society) which do not benefit society,,,,,, but thats a whole nother topic i suppose,,,
You could be right, but the test isn't whether it's productive to society, the question is whether some one wants it enough to pay someone to do it.
i might get blasted for this but i dont know how much people gambling on the turning rates of daily currency is productive to society,,,
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
"So their ideals are based off of a lot of assumtions, such as all people want to live peacefully and work hard...etc. "
So living a peaceful life is a liberal desire? I think across the board humans want the chance to live their life in peace, making them self happy. Are you saying that conservatives do not see peace as a reality? Even though their 'morality' comes from a book that preaches love, acceptance, and peace for all?
but at least they are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent.
In 5, it is only one side of the will which is described, namely, this absolute possibility of abstraction from every determination in which I may find myself or which I may have set up in myself, my flight from every content as from a restriction. When the wills self-determination consists in this alone, or when representational thinking regards this side by itself as freedom and clings to it, then we have negative freedom, or freedom as the understanding conceives it. – This is freedom of the void which rises to a passion and takes shape in the world; while remaining theoretical, it takes shape in religion as the Hindu fanaticism of pure contemplation, but when it turns to actual practice, it takes shape in religion and politics alike as the fanaticism of destruction (of the whole subsisting social order), as the elimination of individuals who are objects of suspicion to a given social order, and as the annihilation of any organization which tries to rise anew from the ruins. Only in destroying something does this negative will possess the feeling of itself as existent. Of course it imagines that it is willing some positive state of affairs, such as universal equality or universal religious life, but in fact it does not will that this shall be positively actualized, and for this reason: such actuality leads at once to some sort of order, to a particularization of organizations and individuals alike, while it is precisely out of annihilation of particularity and objective determination that the self consciousness of this negative freedom proceeds. Consequently, whatever negative freedom means to will can never be anything in itself but an abstract idea, and giving effect to this idea can only be the fury of destruction. – G.W.F Hegel, Outlines of the Philosophy of Right, pg. 29, Oxford World Classics
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by FailedProphet
S & F. INCREDIBLE Original post. I could not have said it with more wit.
I have said this time and again, and it never stops titillating me. South Park once mocked this mantra in their episode on tolerance: "We will not tolerate intolerance"..
What moral relativists really mean is: we will tolerate people who tolerate everything the way we do. We will not, however, tolerate people who do not subscribe to moral relativism.
It's the same my way or no way that traditionalists present.
I ultimately agree with you. That's the only sound way out. Different moral cannons - different nations, cultures, languages. Difference is good.
What I despise are these judgemental, backwards far leftists who engage in demonizing people who subscribe to a traditional morality, as if were some how insulting their modern sensibility. It's outrageously judgmental of them.