If that's a criterion of necessity that you want to set up,
but we might say that it isn't necessary to do your job, as you could do another one.
( Comma, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:15, archived)

only 50 years ago hardly anyone had a car and we used to manage,
but now we're all supposed to need one each, that's what I can't get my head round. How has that happened? It seems like things have got worse.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:18, archived)

Presumably because people now are happy to live a long way from where they work, and therefore 'need' a car to get there.
Personally I like living near where I work, and would hate to lose a couple of hours of every day to a commute.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:20, archived)

me too,
apparently people now travel twice as far to work on average than they did only 20 years ago, or something like that. It's competition in the job market that causes this sort of thing.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:22, archived)

Um, because industry has changed. People used to live where they worked, which is why we have row upon row of terraced housing in big cities.
Given a choice, would you live right next to a factory you worked in? I doubt it. Car = option to live somewhere not shit.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:21, archived)

I wouldn't mind living within two miles of it,
which is easily walkable.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:24, archived)

Indeed.
My journey to work involves a two-mile walk both ways, which is about 25 minutes.

Of course, I "cheat" and travel the other 16 miles by train.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:28, archived)

What if it's a foundary or an abbatoir?
Bear in mind that if everyone lives near to their work then all your neighbours will also be your colleagues. You'll never get away from them. You'll inbreed and the freaky offspring will all work at the same place and so it goes on. Outsiders will be feared. The cycle will never be broken. If you want to see it for real visit a pit village. Then hurry back to lovely cosmopolitan Edinburgh.
( Neptune A dole queue dosser and foul mouthed chav., Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:29, archived)

I grew up in a pit village.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:31, archived)

That explains a lot.

( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:31, archived)

I wasn't born in one,
fortunately.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:35, archived)

You can fit a hell of a lot of people in a 1-2 mile radius.
You'd only be likely to bump into colleagues if you worked in an enormous place, in which case you'd barely know any of them anyway.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:33, archived)

I don't know what it's like where you work,
but there are plenty of nice areas within 2 miles of where I work, despite it being fairly close to central Sheffield.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:35, archived)

you could, but what if your job is important to society?
and for you not to do it would mean someone less good doing it instead?

and if you want to philophise, if someone is good enough at a job that is important to society as a whole, could you not argue they have a moral obligation to do that job?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:18, archived)

Does the individual have a moral duty to society?
This opens up a whole new can of worms.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:20, archived)

if you're arguing that people shouldn't have unnecessary cars
then that can only be argued from an "individual having an moral obligation to society" point of view. Otherwise, why should anyone give a shit how many cars someone else has?

*passes back can-opener and offers worms*
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:22, archived)

I'm not arguing about what they shouldn't have,
I'm only saying most people don't need them, which was the original point of dispute.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:26, archived)

true.
but that's a bit of a pointless argument, you don't NEED the computer you're typing on right now. Or your dog. Or a cooker. Or clothes. etc.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:28, archived)

Tell us your answer to that first.

( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:22, archived)

I'll have to think about it.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:28, archived)

No.
Or at least, not in such a way as it involves an obligation to do certain jobs just because they're good at them.
( Comma, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:30, archived)

so, then
if you don't have a moral obligation in your working life to benefit society if you are able -and crucially others aren't able - why should you have a moral obligation to do anything in your life that benefits society?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:35, archived)

I'd like to make an active/passive distinction,
and say that we don't have a moral obligation to do anything, only to refrain from doing certain things.
( Comma, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:48, archived)

I'm sure you're right
only the active/passive boundary is a bit of a fucker to define.*

I don't necessarily believe what I'm arguing here, I just think it's an interesting subject.

*as in, "they came first for the Communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist"
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 10 Jun 2009, 19:57, archived)