When I was a kid, one of my mother’s guiding principles was that doing chores built character. The end result of this was that I became quite a character. Another impact of these youthful experiences is that I am generally inclined to do chores and chore like things myself, rather than hiring someone else to do it for me. Of course, this tendency was also reinforced by my natural inclination to not spend money.
When I went to college, my exposure to various social and political philosophies led me to adopt the view that exploiting the labor of others to do unpleasant tasks, such as chores (like cleaning the toilet) would be morally incorrect. There is, one might argue, a certain duty on the part of each person to clean his/her own toilet. Since this nicely meshed with my thriftiness and character building, I found this view appealing.
After teaching Aristotle’s ethical theory numerous times, I also realized that my approach seemed to fit in with Aristotle’s theory. To be specific the conditioning provided by such chores would (as my mother claimed) build positive character traits.
Recently, however, I began to reconsider my view. This occurred after I had spent hours and hours doing various house chores ranging from repainting the house to pulling out wheelbarrow loads of weeds. As I wrung the sweat out of the t-shirt, I thought it would be sort of nice to be able to hire someone to do those things. Under the influence of the 100 degree temperature, this seemed to be a fairly good idea.
Perhaps the best argument for this approach is economic: if a person can hire someone to do tasks for less than what s/he makes per hour and doing so frees him/her up to make said money, then that would make good sense. After all, why create less value when you can create more?
Of course, this does raise the character issue. Hiring someone else to do the crappy jobs around the house means that a person is not experiencing these tasks and their alleged character building qualities. There is also the moral concern that paying someone else (usually an exploitable minority) to do the crap tasks at a low wage is exploitative and breeds bad character.
In reply, it could argued that the alleged character building qualities of the crap jobs is a parental myth. It can also be argued that people can be hired at fair wages to do such tasks and this provides them with a job (especially important in the current economy).
My own current view is that I still do my own crappy chores. I clean the toilet, clean the gutters, pull up the weeds, rake the leaves, and so on. Of course, I do hire people who possess skills I do not-I did not try to install my own heat pump, for example. They are well paid (actually, calculated per hour they tend to make more than I do) so I do not feel bad about this (aside from having to shuck out the bucks).
I was taught that all work is honorable.
One of my all time favorites:
” . . .things they’re able to own. . .”
“”. . .to buy stuff. . .”
“. . .afford. . .”
We know what credit permits us to “own”, er, “afford”, er, “buy” ,er , I mean borrow. But, we in the middle class don’t own our Escalades until they’re paid for. Some in the upper class can own a private jet with one easy cash payment. So what you’ve have in the vid is an apples and plums comparison. Cartoonish caricatures similar to Carey’s, but of wealthy people caught up in evil doings and ultra-extravagant lifestyles, are easy to edit together. Stitching together a fair and accurate depiction of the classes is much harder, and it’s not accomplished in your vid.
I was amazed in southwestern China to see how many shacks with dirt-floors had color tvs.
But they’re still peasants living on the dirt.
My point being that here’s the reality: You may be able to borrow enough money from a less than scrupulous credit card company to buy an LED teevee and shift your funds around to pay for basic cable service and still be pretty damn poor when the monthly card statement comes due.
“I was taught that all work is honorable.”
Did your Mama dandle you on her knee and coo in your ear as to how whores are doing a service to society and that prostitution should be legalized?
frk,
Do you ever have anything nice to say?
Look at the studies on liberal unhappiness….
“Do you ever have anything nice to say?”
Yes, I do. Most recently at 7/20 1:26 pm, I wrote to ^you^ (The Price of Fat) “I can agree with most of your sentiments here”. Pretty positive, innit? Esp. considering who I’m writing to. But , honestly, I think you sometimes ignore my positive statements because you don’t want to answer the questions I inevitably link to them.
I’m basically a very nice guy.—depending on the environment I’m in.
I’m willing to bet that some overgeneralizing “spaghetti-armed metrosexuals” (and they know who they are, right, righties) would consider you the one who rarely has ” anything nice to say”?
But, of course you’re no marxist. You still deny that, right? You just think like one, have very similar values as one, have about the same understanding of economics as one. Walks like a duck, etc., etc., etc.
T.J., How about this:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmRgMAZyYN0&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3%5D
There are deep totalitarian impulses on the left, and they keep springing up even among so-called “liberals” and “progressives.” They are just so sure they know what is best for other people, and they want to control everything, right down to whether you are allowed to eat that hamburger or not.
They just can’t stop themselves, much like this guy:
“Animals could be bred and SLAUGHERED!!”
hahahahah!
I suppose you could justify paying someone else to do certain tasks if in so doing you freed up time for yourself to do things which are universally important/beneficial (say writing philosophy books) — so long as you hiring the person to do the crap job is not keeping him from doing something universally important. Seeing as these things are difficult to verify and agree on, I wonder if there is any sound answer to the query of whether hiring someone for crap jobs is justified.
::dismount soapbox::
So long as the person is willing to do the job and wants to do the job for the price offered, why is doing so somehow less “justifiable” than that person not having a job? There were many, many things about life the Karl Marx did not understand. Why continue to let such ridiculous “moralizing” pervert your own thinking?
You have to think for yourselves. You’ve got to be individuals.
http://youtu.be/Zjz16xjeBAA
Whoops. The dismount soapbox bit was an after thought to some remarks I deleted. It can be disregarded.
WTP: prostitution is a common counterexample to your response. The common riposte is that prostitutes are willingly prostitutes. The lingering discomfort I have with that riposte exists somewhere in the following query: should there be a market where certain people can (even willingly) subject themselves to that kind of trade?
Rather sophomoric response, wouldn’t you say? Work is not prostitution. If I enjoy mowing my own lawn, is that masturbation? I could similarly assert that this philosophizing outside the real world of trial and error experience is a form of intellectual masturbation…ah, but I digress…
You are, I think, belittling the very deep, psychological scars that lead most prostitutes into that world. It is a very different thing. However, for people who are in that situation, it is often controlled by an underworld element of violence and fear. Perhaps legalizing prostitution would change that environment. I don’t pretend to know (see link below), but perhaps it’s worth a try?
You are also belittling hard work. In my youth, I worked several so-called blue collar jobs and I don’t think any of the men I worked with and certainly not myself, considered ourselves degraded or had anything close to the kind of psychological damage comparable to what even the more high-class prostitutes will feel throughout their lives. We are people who have developed skills and attributes that make us valued in the world. Be it knowledge, trust, ability, whatever. Those values are useful to a society and so long as we are able to make ourselves useful, we will thrive. Any one or any thing that comes between our abilities and our opportunities to employ those abilities is the true immorality.
Here’s a philosophical perspective to consider:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html]
“Sophomoric.” I might have deserved that.
However, I did not mean to claim that work is prostitution. I meant to claim that some people consider prostitution their “work” (similar to the way some consider selling real estate their “work”). And I am not convinced that just because someone “is willing to do the job and wants to do the job for the price offered,” they could be justified in doing so (as I took you to be saying, which could be the reason I produced such a “sophomoric response”).
And while I grant that many people in prostitution might have landed there as a result of “very deep, psychological scars,” I do not think there is a hard-and-fast law that attaches to every prostitute a story of the deep psychological scars that landed them in the market of prostitution. In Superfreakonomics, a story is told of a (financially) successful independent woman who basically quits her job and begins cultivating a career in prostitution. Whether or not this story is told true (or the authors of Superfreakonomics would satisfy the critical reading of a philosopher), it is certainly conceivable that a person could enter the market of prostitution on purely economical grounds (and be justified in doing so if I interpreted you correctly).
Finally, I too have worked blue collar jobs — since before I was legally permitted to work, actually — and I would say that I could agree (for the most part) about your assessment of people’s feelings about working such jobs. I am not sure what in my comment elicited that bit of your comment — perhaps another “sophomoric” slip on my part.
All this to say, if I conflated work and prostitution, belittled the psychological scars that allegedly lead to prostitution, or overlooked the experience of a blue collar worked, I did so unintentionally (which, admittedly, does not excuse me). Perhaps you can pardon me.
And thanks for sharing the TED talk. Perhaps it will enlighten me.
Prostitution is exchanging sex for money. Do you guys really think it is an accident that hot women chase after rich guys? Get real.
You guys being frk and Nick.
In any case, you need to look at a situation where prostitution is legal, like in Nevada, for a fair comparison.
Here you go:
Don’t think I said that or even implied that. Don’t know where you get that. Perhaps you could explain that?
And I’m not sure what point you’re making with your vid. I wasted 2+ minutes just watching a tour of the ranch—to what purpose? If you want to provide these vids, pre-view them then, unless the entire vid is relevant, ID significant parts by providing time references.
Note: My comment at 7/22 12:10pm above was just a brief attack on the statement “I was taught that all work is honorable.” It was not an attack on ^your^ mother. If the illustration offended (it seemed to irritate magus a bit) I apologize–but not to magus, launcher of the occasional S-AM ref.
In order for your statement to be true, at some point , someone defended prostitution to you as an honorable profession. I was raising the issue of how and in what context that may have happened.
Prostitution’ only legal (which may have some bearing on how honorable it is, right?) in Nevada. Oh, and in countries like Canada, many European countries. . . . It’s a mere coincidence, I would imagine, that it’s legal in many countries that have some version of universal healthcare. . . .
Nevada, it would seem is only a small defect in our exceptionalism as regards prostitution.
frk–you are the one who brought up prostitution as a “dishonorable” form of work, and it apparently did not occur to you that prostitution is “dishonorable” because it is illegal.
No. In my initial response to you, the word “dishonorable” doesn’t appear. And I’ve already explained in paragraphs 3 and 4 at my 8:59 why I brought up prostitution at all. Please read paragraph 4 more carefully.
I’m still pretty certain that I never said that prostitution is a “‘dishonorable’ form of work”. I pointed out that it is legal in much of the English speaking world outside the US., and thus, I assume, is not considered dishonorable there.
Whatever.
And, seriously, what is it with the videos?
What’s not to like about videos?
No surprise BH was a card-carrying Republican. He lived to see the near-full blossoming of dittoheads, fair and balanced Fox News, and the Fundamentalist Christian Right, but, unfortunately he wasn’t doing too many shows then. . . What do you think he would have said ?
Hey. I assume I clarified your mistaken assumptions about my comments.
“What’s not to like about videos.” Given the wording of the question, I’ll assume you like everything about videos. So here’s some mildly relevant news. It’s four minutes long; As seems to be customary on here, I won’t provide time references to lead you to the “tastiest” parts.
OK, frk, check out 1:35 in the video where she talks about the rooms that are accessible to people in wheelchairs.
Or did it never occur to you that disabled guys like to have sex once in a while, too? Once again the free market delivers.
TJ:
Fifteen-twenty seconds on the handicapped bedroom. 15-20 seconds of a 2:40 video.
As I stated : “I wasted 2+ minutes just watching a tour of the ranch—to what purpose? If you want to provide these vids, pre-view them then, unless the entire vid is relevant, ID significant parts by providing time references.” 2:40 minus20 seconds, equals 2+.
You didn’t ID the “relevant” parts, and frankly, I’m not certain even now how relevant the knowledge of handicapped bathrooms is.
Look, I’d be the first to admit I’m not at all familiar with whorehouses in Brazil, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc. so I can’t opine on the treatment of handicapped persons there. Perhaps they provide home delivery for the handicapped?*# Studies are proving that home healthcare for the elderly is preferable to nursing home care. Perhaps you or someone else on here can bring it into focus for us by providing videos**## of the most opulent whorehouses around the world. Youtube, is not required; Your personal vids will be accepted. ^Then^ we can determine whether those houses of ill repute match the offerings of the Mustang Ranch and what role the free market system is playing.
*# Assuming that there are far fewer handicapped clients, on average, how is it a smart free market deal to maintain a room for the disabled (and elderly, I hope). Wait! Wait! I’ve got it!This room is also used to service those men-or women) who can only get off while they’re imagining themselves as handicapped, aged, etc. Am I getting close?
**## As I view one video after another on here, a songs begins to form . . . I think the first line will be “Vids! Uhu! What are they good for?. . . ” But what the should the next two words be. I’m stymied.
Wait! Maybe I can answer my own question:
At 1:59-2:04. All praise be to the Mustang Ranch. . .And no I’m not being flippant about our US Military. I’m just riffin’ on my vid theme.
I’ve got the last two words of that first line: “Possibly somethin'”
Now, honestly, was providing one teeny-weeny time reference and a ‘reason’ for choosing it so friggin’ difficult?
Mike,
I believe character is mostly formed at young age; you mom’s lessons are already learned. Take a break and hire someone whenever you want. They want you to hire them.
I agree completely. If a person is unskilled, the available jobs are not very rewarding, but they are not dishonorable. There is nothing wrong with hiring someone to mow your grass or clean your house, and there is nothing wrong with working those types of jobs.
Also, the lesson that Mike and ohers learned is that that type of work can be difficult, bit it’s needed, so the people hired are deserving of being treated well and fairly. So that’s part of the character building function of work.
” . . .so the people hired are deserving of being treated well and fairly. . .”
!!!. Holey Moley. We agree again. So I’ll give you a little stroke and say something nice about you. Magus, You’ve thought a good thought that came from a positive place.
Now for some workers who are having their characters built:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~nshah/fashioncrimes/Sweatshops.html
http://spot.pcc.edu/~dramirez/262Writing8/ResearchFolder/ReWorkers.html
“Companies have found that American workers are HAPPY to take these jobs, but they want to be well-paid. Fast-food corporations have decided that they will not pay well.
“The answer for the big corporations: Hire people who do not have worker’s rights. Hire illegal immigrants.”
And we have a pretty good idea what the effect of corporations hiring illegal workers has on the working conditions and wages of legal workers, right?
Back to a good place for us, magus71. We can both agree on big corporations, right? The government#* a/should b/should not write and enforce regulation that prevents them from treating their workers like animals and paying them dirt wages? We do agree and the answer, don’t we? And what about the character of the American people– liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and independents alike– who demand, and can’t really live without cheap goods and services, and like the corporate leaders, had their characters formed “at a young age ” and whose ” (l)essons are already learned”. Do we/ they bear more or less responsibility than the government and corporations large and small? Are we/ they equally responsible for the fact that “people hired are deserving of being treated well and fairly” yet, in some cases are not?
#*I’m talking federal government here, because state governments are a bit too close to the individual cases. In a state that depends heavily on textile manufacturing for example, state laws on textile manufacturing workers’ safety would be virtually non-existent if the government thought regulations would strongly effect state revenues.
This is as irrelevant as hell here, but at least it’s interesting. No time references needed.
The interesting bit starts at 6:18:
“The interesting bit starts at 6:18:”
More proof that “What’s “Interesting?”, like “What is art”, is damn hard to define.
Since you provided only a beginning point I stopped at 8:18**##, bored to tears by what seemed to be an inferior documentary, complete with voice-of-doom commentary. Thanks, though for pointing out that the first 6:17 aren’t interesting. Perhaps if I watch the entire clip it’ll become obvious to me what sets the last 8 minutes apart from the first 6. . .
Did you hear about the killings in Norway/? Now ^there’s^ something interesting. Breivik is a man who knows how he feels about Muslims.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/faces-of-hatred-norway-mass-killers-life-laid-bare-2319892.html
“According to his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, Breivik has admitted masterminding Friday’s attacks, but believes he has done nothing wrong.’He thought it was gruesome having to commit these acts, but in his head they were necessary,’ said Mr Lippestad. . .”. And ” just in case he was killed, he left his manifesto and a slick YouTube video explaining his warped and violent ethos.””” ###* Apparently, “Both documents are diatribes against what the Christian fundamentalist saw as the erosion of traditional Europe by the forces of liberalism and a call to arms for nationalists to “embrace martyrdom” by starting an anti-Muslim crusade.”
I’m shocked that Mr. Breivik, given his mindset, didn’t take the opportunity to HIRE OTHERS to to do his dirty work.
**## I’m pretty certain a defined timeframe (6:18 to 10:03 for ex) wouldn’t have changed the final outcome for me.
###* So ^that’s^ what vids are good for. . . !!
Here’s another guy who knows his way around Muslims:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-beck-norway-hitler-youth
“. . .and as the thing started to unfold and there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth or you know whatever. Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? ”
Well.
Beck’s own Tampa 9/12 project “. . .described on their own website as a “part time summer camp [that]will meet from 9am to noon on July 11-15 at the Paideia School in Temple Terrace. Kids aged 8-12 years old will have fun while learning the principles of liberty, free markets, and limited government. They will also learn the values of personal responsibility, faith, courage, hard work, reverence and thrift.”
As the author points out: “A summer camp that teaches the principle of limited government sounds a lot like the political indoctrination of children to me.” Anyone here who thinks that in a Beck-driven camp for kids everything would NOT be permeated with limited government (likely of the Nordquist, drown it in the bathtub variety) raise your hands.
I wonder if his representatives there in Tampa preached this value?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
Here’s where a video can be priceless. Watch it all, if you want a nutshell-sized picture of Glenn Beck’s values.
I remember going to Vacation Bible School when I was a kid. That wasn’t all about religion. . . .
Let’s not forget how much work Marx did. Oh yeah–none.