Update 4/27/22
April 28, 2022•1,121 words
I was working on a philosophical post, but then my dad came to tell me to, for future reference, not to share personal income. I then challenged him on this (my position was that we should have open-salary systems), and then we had an argument for about an hour. Thus I don't think I'm going to have the time to finish the post's draft, so I'm going to instead do an update and dissect the argument.
In essence, my dad's argument was that having open salaries makes people unhappy, spiteful, and dislike you. To develop his argument, he took a cynical viewpoint of labor and a dogmatic perspective on management. He began by describing the labor force as people willing to lie and create drama if given a story, such as one provided by an open-salary system. A negative view of the populace was further advanced by working through the happiness dynamic of a selfish worker - if a worker saw someone had a higher salary than them, then they would complain, be unhappy, and unmotivated, even if the salary discrepancy is justified and detailed by the boss. Thus he concluded that open-salary would make people unhappy.
In response to my dad's initial claim, I argued that an open-salary system would allow for fairness in the workspace. He responded by arguing that such a system would lead to more unhappiness. He proceeded with anecdotes and I responded in kind by inquiring as to why this happiness matters if it is artificial. In this, he brought up the argument that it would demotivate people by leading to jealousy. I responded by arguing that the open-salary system increases motivation by allowing for one to approach one's boss and ask about the salary discrepancy. If the discrepancy is legitimate, then one can learn and grow to be better. if it isn't, then the boss can be exposed for their unjustness. Then I pushed my belief that with an open system, the truth will come out and that the truth will always be better. He then raised the question of why it isn't in place currently. At this point he would dogmatically accept the company's dislike of open-salary as justification for it being bad. He proceeded with a lengthy explanation with anecdotes of why companies don't like it. I told him that I understood that companies don't like it (hassle, ability to exploit workers, etc.), but that I just didn't care what they like or dislike. At this point he didn't seem to understand my philosophical system of happiness as valueless nor the concept of the company being wrong. Thus I believe this motivated him switching the argument to one of legality.
We searched the internet for a little bit, found a law making disclosure of salaries legal, discussed the law's working, and then he conceded the legality. Along the way, the websites we found brought up the point of sexism/racism/discrimination. Then I went into a monologue of why this system would help reduce these evidently bad issues for the small expense of the happiness of "bad people" (laborers in his perspective). I think at this point we continued to rehash old points with exploring more anecdotes, and I got him to concede that the open system was fair (in response to my idea that it is only a personal obligation we have to the pursuit of fairness that we should have an open system, he found it pointless to do so as the only lower salaried people might be inspired by the act of sharing your salary as there's no personal benefit. In response I argued that it was more fair). So at this point I had two concessions from him: the open system was fair and legal. I pointed that out to him, and he still rejected it. He continued to hold onto the belief that happiness is the most important thing.
In reflection, there were some very unsavory things about this interaction. I disliked how my dad constantly create dichotomies of "good" and "bad" people. This really permeated the discussion after the above points (not listed above as I found it argument-less) when he articulated his belief that anyone can and should be your friend, but there should be "true/really good" friends that you can share your salary with. I really dislike the extremely simple dichotomy of "good" and "bad" [1] and even more so the merging of such a dichotomy with his identity (the friendship remarks). It felt especially unsavory when I used this dichotomy in my counter arguments. I also disliked how my dad seemed to be unable to understand what was going on - he kept trying to end the argument with "oh you'll learn when you grow up" or that we were different people, making it pointless to try and convince other people (I was like "he approached me first and tried to convince me?"). I also found the continued use of anecdotes to be overdone and bad as arguments. Unfortunately (for myself and my optimism for humankind's ability), I can't seem to recall some other unsavory thing that I used multiple times throughout my points. I feel like it had to do with identity. He also did an ad hominem attack on my lack of experience in the workforce. I then countered with the inability to reflect on a system whilst in it. Overall, I think I understand some of my dad's philosophy now. He seems very selfish (arguments centered around the self and less on fairness/morality), dogmatic for authority, and values happiness above all else (although seemingly in a superficial, non-utilitarian way).
I also have begun catching up on Crime and Punishment. I'm now on Chapter 4, Part 6. I think the idea of free-will has emerged in this part. In this part we see Rodion reflect on the past events of this book and how powerless of a role he seemed to play in them. He couldn't handle any of the 3 interactions he had with Porfiry, walks unconsciously to Svidrigaïlov's bar, can't control his illness, family, etc. I think Rodion derives his idea of the extraordinary from the concept that these people must be freer than the normal people. Thus his inability to control the situation and his firm, egotistic belief in his own extra-ordinariness are constantly at odds. For instance, he seems to resolve this conflict by inviting situations to converse out of a need and optimism of control of the conversation. Thus he seeks out Svidrigaïlov. I do find the whole Sonya arc to be very mysterious. I don't understand the dynamic here. Maybe Sonya is a masochist and Rodya needs a sense of control and thus controls her? IDK