RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 11:29am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

The word "exploit" is definitely a tricky one for analysis. See the entry below, pasted from dictionary.com:

tr.v. ex·ploit·ed, ex·ploit·ing, ex·ploits (

k-sploit

sploit

)

To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.
To advertise; promote.

[End of pasted text]

Definition #1 is definitley in line with Joe's analysis. Definition #2 is an interesting one for those of us who understand the true meaning of selfishness. In fact, #2 presents two contradictory definitions. To behave selfishly, as we know, is to necessarily behave ethically. How can a person make use of something in both a selfish and an unethical manner? The author of the definition deserves a stern talking to. I'll ignore #3 as it seems somewhat out of the context of our discussion. I agree with Joe that exploitation can be a virtue. However, it can be so only in the proper context. To exploit the labor of your employees, in a free country, is a noble act. One should also expect that the employees will exploit their employer by demanding the highest reasonable wage in return for their services. However, to exploit the labor of slaves is certainly not a virtue.

This discussion rests upon a larger topic that could warrant further discourse: certainty of anything is a contextual assessment. For example, certainty that exploitation is a virtue is justified - within the context of Joe's examples. Peikoff provides a good discussion of certainty as a contextual concept in Chapter 5, "Reason", of OPAR.

Post 1

Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 9:02pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

This issue of exploitation brings to my mind, something that I saw on the cable channel VH1 the other day...

Apparently, Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson had a pretty amicable friendship that began with the recording of their duet, "Say, Say, Say"... Until the rights to The Beatles' songs expired and were up for purchase.

Paul McCartney had discussed with Jackson, how he would raise money to buy up those rights, possibly appealing to Jackson to help bankroll the purchase... at which time Jackson commented, seemingly in half-jest, that he might buy them.

And apparently, Jackson did precisely that... he purchased the rights to all The Beatles' songs, and began licensing them for such use as theme music for Nike Sneakers (recall how the song "Revolution" was used in the ad campaign).

And subsequently, McCartney was irate that Jackson would do such a thing; this prompted Jackson to respond, "It's just good business".

So, here's my question -- a completely open one: was Jackson in the wrong or right, and why?