Is Benefit Subjective?

I was debating a close friend of mine recently on the subject of "benefit." He took the stance that one has to decide for himself what is beneficial for him based on his values. While I agree that one needs to decide their course of action based on their values, I do not agree that anyone can decide what is beneficial, period. I do not believe that benefit is subjective to one's opinion. In actuality, I do not necessarily believe that benefit is subjective at all. I believe that benefit is a constant that is waiting to be discovered, regardless of our opinion.

Now, that being said, there are different things that benefit different people and their different goals more than others. Nevertheless, there are still certain factual, non-negotiable, benefits. For example eating healthy and exercise are both beneficial. They have been proven to be beneficial to the body, and since every one has a body they are beneficial to every one regardless of their opinion. That is not to say that a person should not be able to choose his course of action, or even whether he believes it or not. I am merely saying that benefit is fact, not subjective to your opinion of it.

In relation to this, my friend gave this example: If a health food nut says that eating Twinkies are bad, so a person should eat health food because it is beneficial. Yet that that certain person wants to gain weight because their girlfriend prefers heavier guys. That person should decide which is beneficial for them.
Now, I can understand the dilemma... (I would recommend dumping the chick.) However, just because their goal is to gain weight does not mean that is healthy or beneficial. Healthy food is beneficial to one's body in spite of what their personal goals or values might be. Gaining weight may or may not be beneficial to their relationship, while eating Twinkies (although furthering them toward their goal) is most likely not beneficial.

The question was also posed, that if healthy food and money are both beneficial but it takes all your money to eat healthy, and only a small amount of your money to eat poorly, which is more beneficial?
The answer is that they are both beneficial. You decide which is more important to you, or what your priorities and values determine your action to be. (Personally, I think that money is a tool to be used. And there is no value in having a tool if you are not going to use it.) But that doesn’t make one more beneficial than the other. If you choose to spend the money and buy health food, does that mean that having money is not beneficial? Or if you choose to keep the money and eat poorly, does that mean that eating healthy is not beneficial? Absolutely not! They are both beneficial in spite of your decision. It merely means that you must choose which benefit is of more importance to you. One may be more important to you since it would help in obtaining your goal, but that dose not mean that it would null the beneficiality of the other.

The same is true if you were to go to an automotive dealer looking for a new vehicle. If he were to tell you that you should buy a car as it would get better gas mileage, but you wanted to buy a truck so that you could pull a 15,000 lb trailer, it would not null the beneficiality of good gas mileage. Good gas mileage is beneficial. So is having a truck that could pull a 15,000 lb trailer behind it. Those are facts that are not up for debate. What you must decide (since you cannot have both) is which vehicle would better suit your purposes. Different things may benefit different goals, or different people more.
For example, the person selling gas would benefit more from you buying a vehicle with poor gas economy since you would buy more of his gas and he would make more profit. You on the other hand, would benefit more from buying a vehicle with good gas economy, as you would be able to save money on gas. But both are a benefit regardless of your opinion. Whether it is actually beneficial for your particular goal may be another matter (also not subject to your opinion).

Just because you believe something to be the case does not make it so. Just because I believe that my eyes are purple, or that a board will hold my weight, or even that I can fly... does not make it so. I can believe that something will benefit me, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. If I was trying to get out of debt, and believed that filing bankruptcy would benefit me (as I thought it was the only, or even the best, way to get out of debt), I would be wrong. If I were trying to build a business, and believed that it would benefit me to use credit so that I could build it quickly, rather than using cash, I would be wrong. If I were starting to invest and decided that it would benefit me to borrow at 8% and invest at 12%, I would be wrong again. These are common money myths. Just because people believe them to be true, does not make them so. Just because people think that something may benefit them, does not make it so.

Each person must decide for himself what his values are, and base his goals and priorities upon them. Then he must decide what course of action to take based on his desires and what he *believes* will be of the most benefit to him.
My point is that what we believe to be beneficial, does not affect whether it actually is or not. Benefit is a constant, waiting to be discovered. That is why it's our responsibility to stay well informed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some definitions of the word Beneficial:

"Promoting or enhancing well-being; "an arms limitation agreement beneficial to all countries"; "the beneficial effects of a temperate climate"; "the experience was good for her”.... tending to promote physical well-being; beneficial to health; "beneficial effects of a balanced diet"; "a good night's sleep"; "the salutary influence of pure air""
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"Advantageous; helpful; contributing to a valuable end. Beneficially” –Webster’s


Benefit:

"A term used to indicate an advantage, profit, or gain attained by an individual or organization."www.gao.gov/policy/itguide/glossary.htm

Freedom... a Continued Discussion

Here is a little follow up on a discussion I had regarding freedom.... and Capitalism.


> Someone implied that people are forced to work in order to survive after I had stated that people work because they *want* to.

Don't you *want* to survive? You mentioned a "desire to live" later on, admitting that people do want to survive. "Want" and "desire" are synonymous.

Definitions:

Want: "desire: feel or have a desire for; want strongly; "I want to go home now"; "I want my own room""
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Desire: "feel or have a desire for; want strongly; "I want to go home now"; "I want my own room""
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

And the desire to live is the same as a desire for stuff. It is a selfish, motivational desire. It prompts us to do something. As I have said before: Work "...is something that we do because doing it benefits us more than not doing it."


> I was told that: "In true communism there is no government."

You're debating with the very definition of communism.

"An economic system in which the government owns all property."
wellspring.isinj.com/sample/econ/macro/glossc.htm

"An economic system in which capital is owned by private government."
www.personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/c.html

"An economic system first developed in Russia during the 19th century that believes all means of production should be owned and run by a government..." www.canadiana.org/citm/glossaire/glossaire1_e.html


>Someone also told me that: "Marxism does not deny people of their right to private property."

Did you read the quote I referenced? "The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." -Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels


> I was slightly confused when they stated that: "A slave society is actually a society where the majority of wealth of a society is produced as a result of work done by those who have very little or nothing in comparison with those they work for."

Slave: "A person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience." cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/teachers/plans/gloss_e.jsp

Society: "A society is a group of human beings distinguishable from other groups by mutual interests, characteristic relationships, shared institutions and a common culture." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

Umm... sure.


> They continued, saying: "...and sweat shops are not exclusive to China the U.S. is actually rife with them too. N.Y. and L.A. are two particularly sweat shop friendly places that I know of. Also sweatshops in China are often manufacturing goods for American based corporations."

Ok, point being? It is still up to the employee where they choose to work, and ultimately weather they work at all or not. They do because it is beneficial to them to do so. Because what they receive in trade for their time and labor is more valuable to them than what they are trading.


> And rationalized: "If I don’t exist how is it possible for someone to have power over me? Sounds like freedom to me."

As I said before, freedom is a state of being, and an expression of individual will.

Freedom: "...refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being free."
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Underground%20Railroad

"Freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination, as an expression of the individual will."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)

You cannot express your will when you are dead (as you don't have any when you cease to exist), and therefore you cannot be free.


> Someone replied to my statement that "I don't seem to remember a single person dying from starvation in the US within at least the last 10 or 15 years." with: "Just because you don't remember it doesn’t mean its not happening. It is."

Statistics please? Starvation specifically. Within the US, and within the last 10-15 years.


> They also replied to my statement on finding a second or different job with: "Easier said than done, because you haven't faced this sort of hardship or witnessed it you might not understand. This is just liberal rhetoric and lacks imagination of another persons point of view."

I never said it was easy. Just that it is possible. And you incorrectly assume that I haven't faced this sort of hardship. I have. Three years ago I was barely able to pay rent. I didn't have car to get to work, I couldn't afford to buy a pair of shoes, and the only reason I was able to get new clothes is because I stole them.... And then I got pregnant to a guy who used drugs, wouldn't hold a job, and was cheating on me. You want to talk about hardship? Go ahead. But don't assume that I've never faced any, or wouldn't understand.

The reason I was in that situation is because I chose to be. I worked... but was lucky if he did. And the reason we couldn't afford shoes is because most of the money went to cigarettes and alcohol. That was the result of our, or my, choice.
Now, since I've left that situation... I am a single mother. I've started my own business. I'm contemplating hiring my first employee. I make more now in a week, than I did then in a month. I don't spend my money on cigarettes, and I saved almost 30% my gross income last month. This is the result of my choice.

You want another viewpoint? My siblings grew up in a house with dirt floors, no doors on the cupboards, no running water, and no heat. In Pennsylvania. And you know why? Because their father chose to use the money he earned on alcohol instead of food. And somehow, in this capitalist slave society, they all managed to survive and now have families of their own that are doing quite well. (Remember my nephew, with the new car?)

I'm not a liberal. Don't accuse me of spewing "liberal rhetoric" bullshit.


> In a previous message someone quoted this statistic: "In 1994, in low-income families whose family heads were under 65 years old, 20% of thefaily heads were working full-time, 35% had either partyear or parttime jobs, and only 45% were not employed."

Do you realize what you're using to support your argument? You're telling me that almost half (45%) of the family heads were not working at all, and that the majority (80%) didn't even have a full time job. And you're wondering why they’re classified as poor!? Why would you expect them to be otherwise? They're not even working!!

To quote one of my best and most respected friends: "Work is a sure-fire, time-tested money making scheme. In a free capitalist society, barring mental or physical disability (and those only in some cases), there's absolutely NO EXCUSE for not earning an adequate living."

I visited DC with my boyfriend recently, and we came across a homeless and chick begging for handouts. She said she was hungry and pregnant. She may or may not have been pregnant, but she was definitely fat. She wasn't starving by any stretch of the imagination. But even if she was... begging isn't her only option. Grab a bucket and an old rag out of some trash bin and offer to wash cars. Walla! Her own business... and worse case scenario: Say she only washes one windshield and makes $1... She can go to McDonalds and buy herself a double cheeseburger. She won't starve... she was only begging because she doesn’t *want* to work.


> They continued: "This person has obviously never heard of structured inequality. We hear stories of those who turn $1 into millions but those are exceptions."

Structured inequality? Give me a break. And as for the stories of those "who turn $1 into millions" being exceptions... Of course they are. Because the majority of people value pleasure over possessions. They value their time and labor over what they could trade their labor for. They choose not to work. That is their choice. Just don't expect them to get rich by not working.


> And told me that: "...to state that t.v. is a necessity is ignorant."

Umm, ok... But tell the insurance company that since they made that decision. "Whilst reading through a renewal notice for my household insurance policy recently I happened to notice that my television set would be replaced immediately if anything happened to it, since it is considered a necessity."
http://www.g21.net/mem27.html


> They said: "I think we should just agree to disagree... I hope that we can lay this to rest with no ill will between us."

Sure... I agree that I disagree with you. ;-)


> But admitted that: "I understand and agree with the fact that we trade labour for property, be it goods, money etc. But I still believe freedom can exist without this characteristic."

I didn't say it couldn't. But then do you agree that property can be an evidence of freedom? And that a slave is not free to trade?


> In relation to the "Image of absolute poverty." that someone sent me a url to ( http://picturenet.co.za/photographers/kc ).

So where is the line drawn exactly? It still seems a bit hazy to me... and I am still waiting for even one example
of "absolute poverty" from a capitalist nation.

Now, I would like to get back to work so I can help contribute to a prosperous capitalist economy, and my own
selfish desires. But first to summarise.
Capitalism is a free-choice society. You choose what you do with your time and labor, and the property that you acquire is the evidence of your choice... the evidence of your freedom to choose... and therefore, the evidence of freedom.