 Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 |
In the hey-day of capitalism, employers thought 16 hours a day reasonable, but obviously this was an over-estimate. If labour were to become as omnipotent as capital was in the early nineteenth century, too low a figure would probably be put forward with equal confidence. This illustrates the rule that controversies as to matters of fact are very often due to an absence of disinterestedness in those who pretend to be ascertaining the facts. But where this happens it is because one side, or both, has or have aims that cannot be avowed, since the general public has an aim which both sides have to profess to be pursuing.
Source: Bertrand Russell: Human Society in Ethics and Politics, (1954), chapter 8：Ethical Controversy
More info.:https://russell-j.com/cool/47T-0802.htm
* a brief comment: original text in Japanese, translated with DeepL.com (free version)
There are people from all walks of life, from emperors to the homeless: employers and employees, freelancers who are employed by no one, the fortunate few who neither employ nor are employed by others (having inherited vast wealth from their ancestors), and the homeless who can sometimes find day jobs.
But in most cases, they belong to either the employing (capitalists) or the employed (workers). Negotiations for base wage increases are held every year in spring fights and other events, and although both sides (ostensibly) share the common goal of, for example, developing Japan's economy and improving the welfare of the people, in reality, both sides have "undeclared goals", which inevitably leads to many arguments about differences. The point is that, in reality, both sides have 'undeclared goals', which inevitably leads to a lot of cross-talk.
Russell's point that, for example, in wage negotiations between capitalists who invest capital in nuclear power companies and employees of nuclear power companies, both sides have 'unexpressed goals', but the general public does not know this, so they are likely to misunderstand that they are simply discussing 'means', has a lot of implications.
Incidentally, as 'disinterestedness' is difficult to understand, I asked ChatGPT to explain in plain English what it thinks the meaning and nuances are in this sentence by Russell.
* Explanation by ChatGPT
'Disinterestedness' can be interpreted differently in different contexts, but generally refers to 'selflessness', 'impartiality' or 'disinterestedness'. In the context in which the term is used, Russell points to the lack of 'disinterestedness' in factual disputes.
Specifically, he points out that when experts and parties express positions and opinions, their statements and actions may be biased towards particular interests. In other words, they state that there is a lack of fairness and an objective pursuit of the truth. Because of this deficiency, Russell suggests that while disputes may be about facts, the subjective intentions and positions of the parties involved may have an influence."