You're viewing part of a thread.
Some skills surely are less common within some population, and some may require more training above the skill sets generally shared within a society.
No one is suggesting receiving surgery from an uncredentialed surgeon.
Are such observations broadly relevant or valuable, though, within the context?
You said that different labor does not take more or less skill. Perhaps you were trying to make a different point that you are now trying to tease out socraticly.
Do you think making false statements is a valuable approach? Do you think a job requiring less skill is a bad thing or that it should be respected any less than one that does?
I observed that different kinds of labor require skills that differ qualitatively, yet by the inherent attributes of labor emerges no particular ranking among the kinds.
What statements have I made that are inaccurate?
It is inaccurate to say that labor does not require more or less skill. That is what you said.
You are conflating a duration of time invested acquiring a particular skill, which is quantitative, and therefore may be ranked, if desired, with a skill itself.
No one is conflating anything. You are arguing with yourself. Rank it however you want. People can have more or less skill, and that's OK.
It doesn't mean that one person deserves more rights than another. THAT is the point.
How are you ranking one skill against another?
What is your criteria or method?
There is an elder swordsman who has dedicated their life to refining their blade. A life of training, failure, modesty, and improvement.
How can you distinguish their work from a novice? And how do you dismiss their skill so readily?
More importantly, should the novice not be treated just as well, in any case? Because skill is not the deciding factor in justice.
Are you asserting that skills otherwuse differing only qualitatively are related by a ranking, based on the duration of time invested in acquiring them?
Are such observations broadly relevant or valuable, though, within the context?
Yes. Skill can be measured by the time needed to attain it. Since the skills needed by a surgeon take years to acquire, the surgeon requires more skill than the fry cook. This is a counterexample to your thesis. And by being a counterexample to your thesis, it is relevant and/or valuable. Unless of course, your thesis were to be considered irrelevant and worthless.
You are conflating a duration of time invested acquiring a particular skill, which is quantitative, and therefore may be ranked, if desired, with a skill itself.
What is your thesis?
Skills differ qualitatively, but not by expressing any natural ranking as greater or lesser one against another.
Well, I do agree that the surgeon isn't necessarily a better person because he has spend more time studying, but the greater time investment in training a surgeon is something that needs to be taken into consideration. How do you think should it be considered?
Now you are shifting the goalposts. I am not asserting that no one would take note of how someone may acquire one skill compared to another.
Again, skills are different, not greater or lesser.
Again, skills are different, not greater or lesser.
That's what's called an axiom, because it's a statement that can't really be argued. To disprove it, a valuation of skills would need to be imposed, and any valuation could just as easily be rejected, or turn out to be useless. And I do agree with your axiom.
So, my question is, what conclusions do you derive from the axiom?