The problem of subjectiveness - A response to Sharia's thread of comments

(It wouldn't let me post this as a comment under the thread. Apologies for this going up so late as well, the

formatting is incredibly weird and still does not seem to be fixed)

When reading through this discussion, I kept returning to the idea that most of these conversations revolved around subjective situations; this post brought up a lot of good points, and the comments highlighted how different situations and individuals will yield different answers. 

To Umer’s point about separating an idle aristocrat from the past from a modern CEO, the idea of a “deserving” CEO can be ambiguous. A CEO can work their way up from “nothing,” but that is not always the case. I wanted to think about the CEO argument beyond just a mere position at a company and look at the factors that may have led that person to their position. There is a case a) for an individual who, for their whole life, had to support themselves (ex: working to pay for their own education, etc.) who eventually was able “rightfully” gain their position as an executive in a company. It should be noted that case a) people who are able to climb up a company ladder to gain a position, such as a CEO, seem to be an exception rather than a norm in the modern world. There is also a case b) in which an individual gained a position as a CEO due to mere connections and a lack of work ethic, such as being able to work for a family member’s successful company without the need to work for that position. I think we can all agree (including Locke) that is an unjust obtainment of labor. However, case c) becomes a little unclear. Take an individual who didn’t have to worry about supporting themselves through high school, college, grad school, etc. as their parents were able to financially support them. While individuals may have still worked hard for their current status, there is a level of hard work that is incomparable to person a). Person c) could have gotten this job through connections that their parents worked hard to build, rather than their own, and were able to use their parent’s money to start their own business that they became CEO of. Hard work can be quite subjective, and one cannot compare the work of a) to the work of c) equally, even if both worked for where they are now. Would Locke disagree to certain degrees of outside social and financial support? In addition, there are infinite different cases, as not a single individual will have achieved what they have achieved in the same exact way that another has. This idea of subjectiveness also plays into Umer’s comments about welfare. People living off of welfare benefits may not be able to work because of certain disabilities or even an inability to find a job. We have to be careful in using umbrella terms to describe people, which individuals under that term can differ from each other. This can especially be harmful to poor, marginalized communities who are often attacked for collecting state benefits. For example, the term “welfare queen” is a derogatory term that derides the type of person you mention. However, it is racially motivated and only targets a certain group of people under that umbrella, perpetuating false stereotypes that don’t apply to everyone in that group. 

I also found Kat’s focus on the choice one has over their labor compelling. While an individual may consent to work at a company that exploits its employees, what if that job is the only choice one has? At that point - is it even a choice? Anderson writes that Locke “...rejects the legitimacy of acquiring the right to dominate others by any contracts that take advantage of another’s desperation” (46). There is an ongoing debate about whether one can even be an ethical billionaire. There will always be a lack of transparency in how companies are able to flourish, but in more cases than none, there is some form of exploitation involved.  As Kat pointed out, what if that contract involves poor working conditions such as limited breaks, long hours, and meager pay? In addition, Anderson notes that “The monopolistic money-jobber may be very busy, but he is not doing anything productive if he is only taking advantage of the desperate” (45). A company that simply exploits individuals and adds to value to the common good of others is one that Locke would view as unjust. However - the value added to the common good is also subjective. CEOs use cheap labor to cut costs and grow revenue for their company. To Shaira’s argument, they may be creating a product that will benefit society. But do cheaply made products really benefit society? We live in an era where we are constantly told that we “need” a certain product in our lives. The point of marketing is to target certain individuals and make them believe that they should buy into a certain product or lifestyle. Do pointless items really benefit society? I may think that I need 50 different flavors of lip balm, but what makes one truly happy can both be subjective to different individuals and also falsely realized. It is also important to consider whether the positive benefits can even outweigh the negative costs. If a company’s presence benefits society in one way, we still cannot ignore the negative externalities it may bring. For example, is fast fashion beneficial when it’s also destroying our planet?

I believe that Locke sets up a good foundation for the importance of work ethic that supports the overall common good. It serves as a virtuous way of promoting hard work, especially when the benefit of the collective is to be kept in mind. However, as certain situations become more nuanced, it’s hard to use umbrella arguments to paint certain individuals or actions as simply “just” or “unjust.” Subjectiveness plays a huge role in this, but measuring all individuals, their circumstances, and millions of past actions that led them to where they are is an onerous task that is not realistic.