I think you can say, we share a sentiment that people may or may not be valuable (a) simply for existing, (b) because they achieve a minimum level of (bi) intelligence or (bii) economic fungibility, (c) implicit or explicit participation in some form of social contract.
Now all (a, b, c) are debateable. So for example, I am strongly opposed to (a), amenable to (b), and I tend to l prefer (cii). So in practice I am a sort of nazi because I would encourage selective execution (or simply resource exclusion) for certain types of individuals based on their abilities (b: ablism) or willingness to engage in protocol (c: legalism).
You on the other hand, seem to have assumed position (a). Which is all well and good. I think you want to avoid terms like nihilism which lack a specific reference definition.
If we must talk about zero allocations of value, it is quite possible I would just press the button and nuke all of civilisation as we know it, if I had the opportunity. But that is quite fantastic as a hypothesis, can will be difficult to prove or disprove. If we must talk about provable participation in policy, I have a very basic approach to citizenship at this time: I have never voted in a government election, and I have never bought a special insurance policy for my health or disability (outside from some SMS driven thing my cellphone provider once sent me). On the other hand, I find it useful to kill time that I have left alive in building things.
So I don't think life as a whole is valuable. But I do think, that given a state of life, it is amusing to see what we can get done, just for shits. :)
* The note:
/commented on empathy as a tool for retention/
On my end, I filter and counsel out the staff who are dependent on empathy for well-being. I really want to retain the more independent ones. It's more expensive, but the results are less disruptive to business continuity.
/further comment/
I agree it's a fact that every human will bring their own background to a conversation. I also think that a lot of business opportunities exist because some backgrounds lead to predictable behaviour. Take for example the notion that people are free to pursue happiness - it's illegal and generally discouraged to obtain happiness by suicide, but it's legal and generally encouraged to obtain happiness by candy. This sort of landscape produces very specific business opportunities. It is up to the entrepreneur to design an objective, and to pay the cost of engineering its outcome, despite certain risks. So different brands with different values exist, and there will be different types of employees which exemplify each brand accordingly. Not all brands want to celebrate empathy, some brands may have an outright derision for it, and so their employees will have to be aligned with that. Lol.
No comments :
Post a Comment