Columnist's ethics reprehensible

The notion that a “Living wage benefits everyone” is inexcusably myopic and yet pandemic, in spite of the fact that it represents the compromised morality that has underpinned such social catastrophes as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I am speaking, of course, of the altruist mentality, that man’s life is but chattel to be used in the name of “social progress.”

Firstly, Newman’s assertion that “better wages ... benefit the entire community by increasing worker productivity...” is patently false. Implicit in this line of reasoning is the idea that paying someone $10 or $14/hour for $7/hour worth of work somehow constitutes an increase in productivity. Paying an unskilled worker skilled-worker wages is not going to magically make him skilled.

Further, this policy undermines the incentive to gain skills. Newman is demanding that Duke commit economic suicide.

Why should Duke self-immolate? According to Newman, it “has a moral imperative to do so.” Newman’s ethics hold as moral the sacrifice of the productive to the unproductive. As productivity is a principal means to a life worth living, this morality equates to the idea that man is unworthy of such a value. By what ethics does Duke have the “moral imperative” to pay employees more than what they are willing to work for? The answer, of course, is altruism.

While she claims that life is her goal by endorsing a “living” wage, Bridget Newman is preaching a completely impractical ethics that sacrifices the able to the unable. This ethics demonizes those who have thrived as human beings and wish to continue to do so. To denounce those who thrive by their own productivity is to take not life, but death, as your moral standard.

Edward Nakayama

Trinity ’05