The Frequent "official" Origin Of My Recent Failures With Women

[pjhair]

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.

Never said that it didn't. Even likes of Galielo faced threat for merely stating his view that the Earth revolves around the sun.

 

[SmoothSailing]

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.

Yes exactly this. Spew whatever bullshit you want, don't require me to respect it, or tolerate it in my business or home.

 

[CaptainForehead]

he should have the right to refuse business based on whatever criteria,

"I refuse to do business with colored people".

 

[SmoothSailing]

"I refuse to do business with colored people".

Yes I think this should be allowed. I would never support such a business obviously.

 

[pjhair]

I would hate to live in a society that doesn't allow me choose who I employ in my business based on whatever criteria I like. I'm not stopping you expressing your views, I'm stopping you working for me.

Yes you are free. You can even ask sexual services from your employees by using the same reasoning. Many do. But that still doesn't mean it's ethical to fire people based on their Facebook posts. It's still an attack on freedom of expression.

 

[pjhair]

"I refuse to do business with colored people".

I am confused. Are we discussing what is ethical or what is allowed? These are two different issues. What is allowed is not always ethical.

 

[SmoothSailing]

Yes you are free. You can even ask sexual services from your employees by using the same reasoning. Many do. But that still doesn't mean it's ethical to fire people based on their Facebook posts. It's still an attack on freedom of expression.

If I had employees that were spewing racist sh*t on Facebook I'd feel ethically OK with firing them for it.

 

[pjhair]

If I had employees that were spewing racist sh*t on Facebook I'd feel ethically OK with firing the for it.

You bring an extreme case to support your argument. But let's discuss it. I would say it depends on several variables. For example, what do you really mean by racism? There are people who believe that questioning Islam is racist. You think people should be fired for that?

You might say that criticizing Islam is not racist to you so you wouldn't fire an employee for it. But what about an individual who does considers it racist? Is it ethically OK for him?

People have varying definition of bigotry and racism. I have even heard some lefties claim that asking an asian looking person if he/she is Chinese is racist. Defending freedom of expression becomes even more important in this culture where everyone is desperate to be offended and competing for the victim-hood championship

I really don't think it's ethical to fire someone for their Facebook posts barring exceptional cases.

 

[pjhair]

Yes exactly this. Spew whatever bullshit you want, don't require me to respect it, or tolerate it in my business or home.

You are attacking the straw man here. No one is defending spewing bullshit in your business or home. The debate was regarding posting views on Facebook which is not your business.

 

[SmoothSailing]

You bring an extreme case to support your argument. But let's discuss it. I would say it depends on several variables. For example, what do you really mean by racism? There are people who believe that questioning Islam is racist. You think people should be fired for that?

You might say that criticizing Islam is not racist to you so you wouldn't fire an employee for it. But what about an individual who does considers it racist? Is it ethically OK for him?

People have varying definition of bigotry and racism. I have even heard some lefties claim that asking an asian looking person if he/she is Chinese is racist. Defending freedom of expression becomes even more important in this culture where everyone is desperate to be offended and competing for the victim-hood championship

I really don't think it's ethical to fire someone for their Facebook posts barring exceptional cases.

There are two separate issues here.

1. I think everyone should have the right to choose employees based on whatever criteria they like.

2. I think there are circumstances where it's ethically OK to fire someone for their views or things they say. I gave an extreme example to back up my point.

What is ethically OK for you, your "exceptional circumstances" may differ from mine, or anyone else's. The government enforcing what employees can and cannot say without fear of being fired is not right in my opinion.


But yes you are correct it's certainly not always ethically right to fire someone based on what they say, but you should be free to do it. Just like you're free to sayany things that are not ethically correct.


I could go on for much longer about this issue but I'm on my phone at the moment.

 

[SmoothSailing]

You are attacking the straw man here. No one is defending spewing bullshit in your business or home. The debate was regarding posting views on Facebook which is not your business.

True, my mistake, view it as a separate point.

 

[pjhair]

What is ethically OK for you, your "exceptional circumstances" may differ from mine, or anyone else's. The government enforcing what employees can and cannot say without fear of being fired is not right in my opinion.

Precisely. I agree with you that government enforcement may not be right. However, we were discussing if it is ethical to fire someone based on his/her facebook posts. Anyway, we both seem to agree that barring exceptional circumstances, it may not always be ethically ok to fire someone for Facebook posts. We only seem to differ on what those "exceptional circumstances" are. The question is, can we determine those circumstances where it can be generally agreed upon that they warrant termination of an employee? I think yes , there are some. For example, if an employee makes a Facebook post abut his plans to commit workplace violence or mass murder. It's an employers ethical obligation to not only fire such an employee but also to report him to law enforcement agencies so that they can keep an eye on him. But that's where I draw the line. Unless someones Facebook posts are indicative of future violence, I will not fire an employee.

 

[SmoothSailing]

Unless someones Facebook posts are indicative of future violence, I will not fire an employee.

But you respect that this is not everyone's line? I would probably fire employees who partake in bullying, posting views that would affect their particular work (eg. A securoty guard who os racist) or many other things that do not incite violence.

 

[pjhair]

I would probably fire employees who partake in bullying, posting views that would affect their particular work (eg. A securoty guard who os racist) or many other things that do not incite violence.

I would fire an employee for bullying his co-workers at workplace but not for making racist Facebook posts. I distinguish between Facebook sphere and employment sphere. Unless someone is engaged in bullying and harassment at work, I will not fire him. For example if a Muslim employee came to me accusing his co-worker of harassing him by criticizing Islam on Facebook, I will not fire the employee. I will simply tell the Muslim employee that if his co-workers posts bother him, he is free to delete him from Facebook. Decisions regarding employee termination shouldn't be dictated by Facebook posts barring exceptional circumstances.

But you respect that this is not everyone's line?

I know it's not everyone's line and they are wrong. I don't view morality as subjective. I believe there are objective moral views. The difficulty is in determining what those values are. I believe "we should defend freedom of expression" is a morally valid position, hence we should uphold it, barring exceptional circumstances. In the previous post, you argued that "exceptional circumstances" may be open to subjective interpretation. I believe that people may try to assess those circumstances subjectively but it doesn't mean there is no objectively morally valid position behind each of those circumstances. Let me elaborate and attempt to explain what I mean. Look at the following mathematical expression:

1 + 2 = 3

Is the above expression objectively correct? Yes it is. But what if Peter says, I refuse to believe that 1 + 2 = 3, I believe it's 5. Well, just because Peter believes that 1 + 2 = 5, it doesn't mean it is 5. It will still be 3. Just because people are allowed to have their subjective opinion about mathematical expressions, it doesn't mean mathematical expressions don't have an objectively right answer. I have precisely the same view of morality. The statement "we should defend freedom of expression" is a morally valid statement.

You might argue but the statement "we should defend freedom of expression" isn't always valid. What if an employee makes a Facebook post about shooting his co-workers? Shouldn't he be fired for that? I will say, yes he should be. But it doesn't make the statement "we should defend freedom of expression" morally invalid. Why not? Because you changed the equation. For example, 1 + 2 = 3 but if you changed the equation, for example if you add one to the expression, the resulting value will be different but still objective. So (1 + 2) + 1 = 4 because the expression has changed. But it doesn't mean 1 + 2 isn't 3. Similarly, when an employee makes a Facebook post about committing workplace violence, the moral value "defend freedom of expression" is in direct conflict against the moral value "defend lives of innocent employees". There is basically a tug of war between these two values and defending lives of innocent trumps the right of free speech. However, i don't think "we shouldn't make racist Facebook post" trumps the "right of free speech", hence I wouldn't fire an employee for making such a post.

You may have several follow up questions/objections, for example:

(1) How do we know that statements like "we should defend freedom of speech" is morally valid?

(2) How do we know that defending lives of innocent employees trumps right to free speech but "we shouldn't
make racist Facebook post" doesn't?

I could have preemptively answer these questions but chose not to to keep this post short. If you want them answered, let me know.

 

[SmoothSailing]

I would fire an employee for bullying his co-workers at workplace but not for making racist Facebook posts. I distinguish between Facebook sphere and employment sphere. Unless someone is engaged in bullying and harassment at work, I will not fire him. For example if a Muslim employee came to me accusing his co-worker of harassing him by criticizing Islam on Facebook, I will not fire the employee. I will simply tell the Muslim employee that if his co-workers posts bother him, he is free to delete him from Facebook. Decisions regarding employee termination shouldn't be dictated by Facebook posts barring exceptional circumstances.



I know it's not everyone's line and they are wrong. I don't view morality as subjective. I believe there are objective moral views. The difficulty is in determining what those values are. I believe "we should defend freedom of expression" is a morally valid position, hence we should uphold it, barring exceptional circumstances. In the previous post, you argued that "exceptional circumstances" may be open to subjective interpretation. I believe that people may try to assess those circumstances subjectively but it doesn't mean there is no objectively morally valid position behind each of those circumstances. Let me elaborate and attempt to explain what I mean. Look at the following mathematical expression:

1 + 2 = 3

Is the above expression objectively correct? Yes it is. But what if Peter says, I refuse to believe that 1 + 2 = 3, I believe it's 5. Well, just because Peter believes that 1 + 2 = 5, it doesn't mean it is 5. It will still be 3. Just because people are allowed to have their subjective opinion about mathematical expressions, it doesn't mean mathematical expressions don't have an objectively right answer. I have precisely the same view of morality. The statement "we should defend freedom of expression" is a morally valid statement.

You might argue but the statement "we should defend freedom of expression" isn't always valid. What if an employee makes a Facebook post about shooting his co-workers? Shouldn't he be fired for that? I will say, yes he should be. But it doesn't make the statement "we should defend freedom of expression" morally invalid. Why not? Because you changed the equation. For example, 1 + 2 = 3 but if you changed the equation, for example if you add one to the expression, the resulting value will be different but still objective. So (1 + 2) + 1 = 4 because the expression has changed. But it doesn't mean 1 + 2 isn't 3. Similarly, when an employee makes a Facebook post about committing workplace violence, the moral value "defend freedom of expression" is in direct conflict against the moral value "defend lives of innocent employees". There is basically a tug of war between these two values and defending lives of innocent trumps the right of free speech. However, i don't think "we shouldn't make racist Facebook post" trumps the "right of free speech", hence I wouldn't fire an employee for making such a post.

I agree with most of what you say but you seem to be confusing 'freedom of expression' to be something that everyone must uphold. It's something the government should uphold, but in other voluntary situations it doesn't necessarily need to be upheld. Otherwise it gets in my freedom to treat people differently based on their beliefs or what they say.

I should have the freedom to start a shop that will not employ racists, or even people I simply deem as racist. But that's an extreme example. I should also be able to start a shop that won't employ Chelsea fans. This is wrong but we cannot outlaw it for similar reasons we cannot outlaw speech. Do you agree with this?

Not every moral can be put to law. Just like it's morally wrong to call someone ********. But it shouldn't be against the law.

This is true freedom. The freedom to restrict other voluntary participants in your business or home or service. Just like facebook have every right to censor political opinions. I dislike it but I have freedom not to use it or start my own social media that allows it.

 

[pjhair]

I agree with most of what you say but you seem to be confusing 'freedom of expression' to be something that everyone must uphold. It's something the government should uphold, but in other voluntary situations it doesn't necessarily need to be upheld. Otherwise it gets in my freedom to treat people differently based on their beliefs or what they say.

I should have the freedom to start a shop that will not employ racists, or even people I simply deem as racist. But that's an extreme example. I should also be able to start a shop that won't employ Chelsea fans. This is wrong but we cannot outlaw it for similar reasons we cannot outlaw speech. Do you agree with this?

Not every moral can be put to law. Just like it's morally wrong to call someone ********. But it shouldn't be against the law.

This is true freedom. The freedom to restrict other voluntary participants in your business or home or service. Just like facebook have every right to censor political opinions. I dislike it but I have freedom not to use it or start my own social media that allows it.

I thought we have already moved past discussing what a government should or shouldn't do. Laws don't always represent morality. In Pakistan, you can be put to death by law for blasphemy. It doesn't mean it is right.

You have freedom to treat people differently based on their beliefs, but it doesn't mean it is right.

 

[SmoothSailing]

You have freedom to treat people differently based on their beliefs, but it doesn't mean it is right.

Exactly. This started by you saying you'd use the law if your employer fired you for Facebook posts. I'm outlining why I disagree with such laws. But I think we're in agreement

 

[pjhair]

Exactly. This started by you saying you'd use the law if your employer fired you for Facebook posts. I'm outlining why I disagree with such laws. But I think we're in agreement

That was more my gut, though erroneous, reaction. However, the options indeed are available to me by law. Nevertheless, I was debating your following post:

"Just outlining how I see it as ethically OK for them to fire people based on what they say or their views. The law likely does not follow my ethics here."

 

[SmoothSailing]

That was more my gut, though erroneous, reaction. However, the options indeed are available to me by law. Nevertheless, I was debating your following post:

"Just outlining how I see it as ethically OK for them to fire people based on what they say or their views. The law likely does not follow my ethics here."

This is a separate argument that can only be taken on a case by case basis. Some cases I certainly view it as OK, but most that you have in mind I also view as wrong. Such as firing someone for their political views which have no affect on their work etc.

 

[rclark]

I like your use of color in the text.
Also.. Are you OK?

YES, wHaT makes you SAY THAT...