OK with slavery though. Culture in those days was for the 1%.
2 Likes
I’m not so sure his conception of slavery lines up with the 18th century practice of ‘slavery’ that comes to mind when that word it used. He did believe in Natural Slaves, that it was the place of some people to be ruled.
Recall also that his words and interpretations in large part come to us via Plato, who decidedly felt that slaves (a slightly different concept from that of his teacher) could absolutely be considered livestock.
I never got the sense that Aristotle was talking no so much about what western politics became thousands of years later, so much as the tendency to for some persons to be domineering, and others to be sheepish. Some people won’t serve like that, and Aristotle said that those individuals are not fit to be slaves, and should be free. It’s very much about internal drive. He had some interseting non-modern views on women as well, but he ascribed equality of feeling to humans, though not capacity. Everyone could be happy, not just anyone got to be in charge.
He was describing a very different reality. Modern constitutional democracy wasn’t possible at that time, our modern worldview wouldn’t fit. So I find it hard to look at Aristotle through John Adams glasses. I’m sure Adams read Aristotle though, and I am glad for it.
3 Likes
Of course. But we shouldn’t forget that the rise of the city-state also led to the pyramid with the military and the literate at the top which is still such a feature of civilisation.
Personally, though, from what I’ve read of him, I detest Plato.
1 Like
Tl;Dr: All Goal. No Soul.
2 Likes
Hardly his doing, though. I attribute to him a description of his observed reality, to the best of his understanding. He was a guy, not a historiologist in the tradition of Assimov’s Foundation. He isn’t at any fault for the human tendency to misappropriate and misuse things, in fact he tried to express that misusing and mistreating people (even to the extent you considered yourself their owner) was not a good idea. I mean, Aristotle has had influence, but it’s not like we’re living in his world.
That we no longer have the privelige to own one another does not at all mean that a bunch of us don’t constantly act like it.
Like the employer in this case, and his ill treatment of the human beings he wants to earn off of.
Were this employer someone who saw himself as the equal of his employee, were they friends, were that more normal in our culture… well that’s not how you would treat a friend if you have a moral compass. He probably wouldn’t stand for it if he were in her place. It’s fine for livestock though.
1 Like
You are correct that the relationship between employer and employee is unlike that of a feudal lord and serf. The feudal lord did have a responsibility to protect the serf in the event of invasion by other lords, or by foreign forces. The serf in turn had a responsibility to work his share of the lord’s land, returning to the lord a portion of his harvest, and to serve as a member of the lord’s army, generally for 40 days per year. So in this relationship, the serf had little to no opportunity to leave the service of his lord given the conditions of the time.
In the modern world, there is much greater freedom. The employer employee relationship is one of free exchange. The exchange is capital for labor. If one party is dissatisfied with the performance of the other, the relationship can be terminated by either party. The employer has no responsibility to change working conditions to support pregnant workers. The employer can do so if he wants to, voluntarily, no force is required.
As to the morals you mentioned, I am not the one advocating the use of force to get my way. You are advocating the use of force to get the outcome you think is right, you are the one who is willing to violate the rights of others, to get your way.
where did I ever do that? That sir is a lie.
put your arrogance away, you’ve no right to violate my right to speak my own mind, cur. I’ve said no such thing, you’ve falsely said I did, and you can offer the apology you deserve when you are slandered.
Please note, I’ve been insulting because I don’t wish any apology from a Janus.
I find your ideas laughable, in this century.
8 Likes
Shouldn’t that be amended to “Late State Conservatism”? We’ve skipped straight to, “Obama was the real racist”, “paid protesters” and ‘the President’s powers being “beyond question”’, and the bendy-spine conservatives seem A-Okay with it.
3 Likes
You’re not advocating the use of force? How else do you propose to get the employer to do your bidding?
WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PREGNANT CAVER WOMEN WHICH MUST SURELY MAKE UP MOST OF SOUTH DAKOTA’S FEEEEEMALE WORKFORCE?!?
13 Likes
Same way you do, I’ll make believe. Goodbye now child.
5 Likes
I just cannot understand how somebody could have come from a background so entitled and so divorced from the reality of ordinary people that they could put forward such a statement without fingers crossed behind their back.
You remind me of Steve Bell’s précis of the views of the loony “libertarian” MP John Redwood: “Starve where you like.”
Aristotle’s dead, you don’t need to defend him. And anyway, I don’t have an argument with him; it isn’t his fault the Schoolmen comprehensively misunderstood almost everything he wrote, just as I don’t blame Jesus for the Roman Catholic Church or Luther.
My point was simply that though his reality was different from ours it was part of a continuum of change that went from the Mesopotamian city state to a modern city. I don’t think there is a saltation between societies. That was all.
10 Likes
Do you honestly believe that an employer and employee are operating on some sort of level playing field? Seriously? Just a cursory look at history shows us that’s not true. Many employers often exploit workers who have little to no choices in how they sell their labor to employers - where the options to work for a wage has been summarily erased. To think that the employers and employees come to the table with the equivalent options, choices, and power to bargain over their employment contract is remarkable naive.
30 Likes
The problem is, the morals that you are advocating can only function if the coercive aspects to the worker of the threat of lack of food, lack of housing, and, with the rising trend of the return of debtors’ prisons, the threat of legal action and imprisonment are all ignored. This is not a reality in which someone can quit and resume working the following day with zero repercussions.
So this viewpoint of yours must ignore those aspects, or explain why you find the rights of the employer to not have to accommodate the reasonable needs of his workers to be of greater importance than the right of the worker to not have to fear starvation, loss of housing, or imprisonment.
23 Likes
An alternative view is that it is remarkably self-aggrandizing, which is yes, exactly the same thing. Born on second base and actling like you hit a double doesn’t even begin to scratch this one. This is straight up pretending that first base doesn’t even exist, nevermind having to actually swing a bat yourself!
10 Likes
Don’t shout, the echoes might cause a rockfall.
12 Likes
I very much took your intial terse comment as a devaluation of my contribution to the conversation, and one that lacked nuance. i almost went for the fallacy guide to share a link with you, because one person have a bad idea doesn’t really devalue their other ideas (a life of bad ideas is another matter), and I interpreted you as knocking what i said in that way.
I engaged, and I see why I thought that now.
Like I said earlier, but you ignored: collective bargaining. Or, you know, democracy. If enough people decide that treating employees like that shouldn’t be legal, it is illegal. For good reason. This really isn’t hard.
18 Likes
But that’s communism and we can’t have that… unfair to employers! /s
15 Likes
Let’s say a pregnant woman desires changes in her workplace to accommodate her condition. If these changes are denied by the employer, and the employee becomes dissatisfied, there is a choice to be made by the employee. The options are to remain in the employ of her current employer and endure undesirable conditions while earning her current wage or salary, or to quit and receive no wages. The employer at no time is threatening the employee with loss of wages ( in this scenario), the choice lies with the employee.
