[Rooster61]

> for a greater good

This is an assumption, and a logical fallacy. The whole problem of doing something "for the greater good" is that no one on Earth can definitively define what is good and what is not. Trying to do so is the bottomless rabbit hole we call ethics. OP is correctly pointing out that your view of unionizing being advantageous is subjective.

[lenticular]

>You are contradicting yourself. If a union could be a good or a bad thing, then one cannot use the argument that we do things for the greater good without presupposing that a union is a good thing. You are indeed assuming your own premise as true, which is indeed a logical fallacy.

No I'm not. In these comments I am arguing against the premise that a closed shop union is automatically invalid because the coercion would be wrong. The advantages that a union can have is not subjective under pretty much any reasonable ethical framework. If your ethical system can not produce judgments about public policy based on evidence, then it is useless.

Subjectivity is a different thing from uncertainty. The goal of ethical systems is to provide a way to make ethical decisions based on evidence. If we can agree on some ethical concepts, then objective decisions can be made given those concepts. The selection of an ethical system is subjective, but it's pretty obvious that it must allow for coercion.

[TaylorAlexander]

Your comment seems dismissive of the notion of ethical behavior. We can argue the finer points, but we can agree for example killing let’s say innocent people is bad. Feeding hungry people is good. The point of collective power is not to agree on everything, but to find enough in common agreement to organize around it. As a collective you can better negotiate for your common interests.

[Rooster61]

> We can argue the finer points, but we can agree for example killing let’s say innocent people is bad. Feeding hungry people is good.

This is simply moral relativism. That argument holds up only under specific, ad-hoc circumstances. A group of people can very easily come to a conclusion that an action should be taken because they agree on it, and find out later that the consequences of that action were detrimental.

[lenticular]

Yes, decisions must be made under uncertainty, because we don't ever know the exact outcome. Sometimes, even when acting rationally using available evidence, a decision winds up having negative consequences. Them's the breaks in our uncertain reality.

If a group of people collectively make a decision that is not consistent with evidence and their ethical system, then they are not making decisions correctly. I don't think anyone here is debating that decisions can be incorrect.

[yarrel]

Then you cannot argue that something is not for the greater good.

There are historical arguments for and against particular unions for particular people, and there are studies of the impact of union activity.

"That's subjective" is the start of a debate, not the end of it.

[lenticular]

>This is an assumption, and a logical fallacy.

No it's not. The poster was seemingly espousing a belief that because he didn't want a union, it is morally wrong to force one on him. That is inconsistent with a belief in the benefits that government coercion can sometimes be a good idea. A union could conceivably be a bad thing or a good thing, but to dismiss it with a rights-based argument simply doesn't make sense.

> The whole problem of doing something "for the greater good" is that no one on Earth can definitively define what is good and what is not.

All endeavors may fail. We make decisions based on probability of outcomes. This is the same for both individual and collective decisions. If we cannot make collective decisions under uncertainty, then there is no point to any government whatsoever. Also, if we cannot come up with a baseline of ethics to evaluate possible outcomes, then we can't make any collective decision either.

[Rooster61]

> No it's not.

> A union could conceivably be a bad thing or a good thing

> As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.

You are contradicting yourself. If a union could be a good or a bad thing, then one cannot use the argument that we do things for the greater good without presupposing that a union is a good thing. You are indeed assuming your own premise as true, which is indeed a logical fallacy.