"Everyone Has A Price"?

[Nicki]

I definitely disagree.

 

[Lark]

Is a sign we live in a very cynical age that more people are agreeing than disagreeing?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Not necessarily in term of money or stuff, but if someone they love or their own body is threatened, I think there is some point that it is human nature to break. I'm not if that is what it what the OP was talking about or not. Not everyone cares about money.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Leverage can be gained over anyone, as everyone has something they actually care about.

Find that thing and exploit it, and bingo bango, you've got acquiescence. I think a better question for the OP and thread in general would be, what won't you do for money?

Anyone would do anything to save those they care about, so that's kind of a separate thing from what would you do for money (favors, or whatever etc..)

 

[entropie]

Leverage can be gained over anyone, as everyone has something they actually care about.

Find that thing and exploit it, and bingo bango, you've got acquiescence. I think a better question for the OP and thread in general would be, what won't you do for money?

Anyone would do anything to save those they care about, so that's kind of a separate thing from what would you do for money (favors, or whatever etc..)

You really need to get that rusty gun of yours polished old man

 

[Society]

Not necessarily in term of money or stuff, but if someone they love or their own body is threatened, I think there is some point that it is human nature to break. I'm not if that is what it what the OP was talking about or not. Not everyone cares about money.

you still depend on the context - a price for what? yes - you could probably get parents to do anything if you threatened their children - but then that "anything" isn't then likely to include harming their own children. the same can be said to any other value - people who would do anything for their country wont have a price for harming their own country, etc.

 

[Jaq]

Disagree

 

[Secretsoul]

I disagree. Someone who has nothing to lose has everything to gain. Someone with nothing to gain has everything to lose. Assuming that these two positions apply to everyone, or something in the middle of the two apply to everyone, it would be an absolute statement. I think the people that can't be bought, monetarily or otherwise, are either those with a balanced perspective or those who just quite caring.

For instance; a parent who doesn't care about their child, wouldn't do anything to harm them or to save them, they could remain neutral. Or someone who is suicidal and values nothing in life, be it because of depression, fear, et al... Wouldn't be easily bought because they've already given up.

Another example would be something like people who subscribe to reincarnation or an ideal of an afterlife that holds them morally accountable for things done in this lifetime. They wouldn't be easily bought if something went against their belief system (and this topic denotes going against ones principles, as a person who has a neutral stance wouldn't be being bought, rather paid).

 

[Thursday]

Yes, though not always a monetary price.

Yes. And if something exceeds that price, you opt out.

 

[WhoCares]

Agree. People are basically whores to something.

 

[Little_Sticks]

There are things I won't do, that no amount of money, praise, fame, pride, personal safety, etc. will change. For everything else, I'll do anything if the price is right.

 

[Lark]

To be honest this whole idea disgusts and alienates me but probably because I hate the extent to which the economic and market metaphors have crept into every single side of life and decision anyone can make.

 

[five sounds]

To be honest this whole idea disgusts and alienates me but probably because I hate the extent to which the economic and market metaphors have crept into every single side of life and decision anyone can make.

Good gracious, me too! The title of this thread makes me feel icky.

 

[Lark]

Good gracious, me too! The title of this thread makes me feel icky.

I think it implies that people are cheap, people are objects and to be bought and sold.

 

[garbage]

Everything's subject to cost/benefit analysis, sure. It just turns out that some trades have costs that are way too high for them to be worth an ounce of consideration.

 

[Little_Sticks]

I think it implies that people are cheap, people are objects and to be bought and sold.

I guess it is the basis of thought such. Too bad people don't often rationalize how people aren't this instead. I guess that's their choice though.

Everything's subject to cost/benefit analysis, sure.

Sure, but sometimes there are better explanations or reasons for things. Cost/benefit analysis is often very negative and over-analytical when applied to people and human relationships.

 

[Mole]

I think it implies that people are cheap, people are objects and to be bought and sold.

Yes, we can think of ourselves as children of God and so beyond price. And as well we can think of ourselves as children of the Enlightenment who are free and equal and not resources to be bought and sold.

And we can know we are not means to an end, but ends in ourselves.

 

[Blackmail!]

And we can know we are not means to an end, but ends in ourselves.

Kant would be proud of you.

 

[Lark]

I guess it is the basis of thought such. Too bad people don't often rationalize how people aren't this instead. I guess that's their choice though.



Sure, but sometimes there are better explanations or reasons for things. Cost/benefit analysis is often very negative and over-analytical when applied to people and human relationships.

I actually like reason with human relationships, it could positively influence what most people think of as love and intimate social relationships too, what I detest is that the import of financial or fiscal analogies or metaphor in the manner of this thread are never done so in order to make important points about the limits of markets or capitalism or that other values should be naturally ascendent or superior to the market values but rather to cheapen human beings and make them commodities.

Although I kind of feel the battle has, unfortunately, been lost, moralists and religionists are dismissed on the left for cultural reasons, on the right for fiscal reasons and all in all it benefits the plutonomy's masters as they buy and sell people like beasts.

 

[Lark]

Yes, we can think of ourselves as children of God and so beyond price. And as well we can think of ourselves as children of the Enlightenment who are free and equal and not resources to be bought and sold.

And we can know we are not means to an end, but ends in ourselves.

Kant was a believer.

Anyway, the ways in which I've seen the so called enlightenment used and abused the whole thing is something which alienates me now. Whatever good the ideas which were trending then they did not fufil any hopes, dreams and promises.