I would substitute 'personal profit' for 'economic production'. And you are quite right, humans are exploited, and with the goal being profit, humans are a means to an end. In such a system, the value of humans is as a labor force and consumer. The
Right, and individual participants of either side of either consumption or production are essentially valueless. Their worth as individuals is only their relationship within a more cohesive community. Which is why social stratification (and limiting social mobility within it) is so essential to maintaining the system. Returning to the question of individual value, I would argue that individual value is however much degredation a person will suffer and remain an actor in the system.
Helpfulness and knowledge/willingness to learn more Some people contribute way more go society than others, and many just exist and take more than they give
A philosopher could contribute to human society hundreds of years beyond his/her death but die poor and destitute. A billionaire could have created a fast food chain responsible to millions of premature deaths. Which one was a greater value to society? Was wealth the deciding factor?
the fast food chain also creates lots of jobs for people to better themselves and get started in the work force also the fastfood chain isn't responsible for the deaths, you don't eat fast food and die just like that, its over consumption, which is a personal responsibility issue
You could also argue that active wars result in higher employment and economic activity. The end doesn't justify the means though. Also it might be legal to sell something addictive that slowly poisons people to death but at some point the person who profits and expands such an arrangement deserves some culpability.
but fast food chains aren't war, bad example and why should someone giving people what they actively want be punished? no one makes people eat fast food, or smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, its all a personal choice that they actively make....supply and demand... if it was mandatory to partake in those things then yes the people making us do that should be punished, but its not
If someone makes a billion dollars from selling something deadly, they don't deserve to be punished but they also don't deserve to be valued over a poor philosopher who helps inspire the Bill of Rights. The former got rich off of people's gluttony, the latter created something that will protect freedom and human rights for centuries to come. The money is a non-factor in assessing someone's true value to society.
Ugh, never mind, my post was riddled with mistakes - I was thinking analytically about what is essentially a preferential question. Good point though. ^_^.
You're only giving the philosopher more credit is because that's what you're into...you're also assuming that they will come up with something great... Not all philosophers contribute anything of value, very few of them actually do... And the bill of rights had an imediete impact, it didn't take more than their lifetimes for it to show its value, and it was written up by more than just a philosopher.... If that's how you wanna go about it then the only way a philospher is of value is if they come up with something of value...just sitting around pondering your life and the universe doesn't do anything if nothing of value comes from it... Plumbers bring more value than most philosphers do...I don't know anyone willing to give up running water or using the bathroom indoors... It all comes back to what do you bring to the table, now how do you rate what is brought to the table...
My point is that a philosopher can serve a greater purpose than someone wealthy. Not that any philosophers have greater value has than any wealthy person. The idea that wealth automatically indicates a person has greater value is false.
I think many people value wealth because of the (maybe unrecognized) yerning to be free, and money translates to freedom in america (to a large degree).
money translates into freedom just about anywhere. Depending on how you define freedom I guess. To me freedom is the ability to "chose" So to quantify freedom I guess you'd use number of options. The more money you have, the more control you have and the more options you have. You literally have more freedom if you have more money. Now if you are talking about spiritual freedom, I would say that money is only a material object and isn't a factor in spiritual freedom. One choses to be free regardless of what they have. -yuri
I agree with you on most of that. I was referring more toward the former. Paying taxes for instance, if you are low income, 20% is much more restrictive than a millionaire paying what, 30-40% (i forget the actual numbers). Or choosing not to pay taxes, if you already have a lot of money, paying for legal defense is less prohibitive. Same with petty infraction taxes (tickets), or gas prices, food, medical, etc. Aquiring wealth give us a sense of freedom from those sorts of things. Even being able to travel and experience the world and other cultures, the list goes on. I wonder if some people, once they aquire some wealth, forget (or dont realize) the underlying drive for which they obtained it. Maybe that is too idealistic of an assumption, maybe they crave wealth for a wholey different purpose.