Consequences may vary, but then again, no-one is owed anything legally, morally, or otherwise so to act as though every individual does not have or exercise their own self-agency is disingenuous.
Consequences may vary, but then again, no-one is owed anything legally, morally, or otherwise so to act as though every individual does not have or exercise their own self-agency is disingenuous.
Also, it is disingenuous at least to say every has their own "self-agency", but "Consequences may vary." I would agree it's a sliding scale because people's chioces imply different levels of consequences for losing one's job (for example if you bought an expensive mortgage versus not). But morally, and legally as well, we certainly owe people the ability to make actually free choices without metaphorical guns to their heads.
It's not about courage. It's usually that someone else has already provided the same alternate view/retort, so there's no sense in starting a new comment branch.
While it is fair that "no one is 'owed' anything, legally" - actually, even that's wrong, but I'll pretend it's right for the sake of argument, some people are in situations where there is a single job in town, they do not have the money to move, and they have kids to feed.
They cannot quit.
Not having money to move and mouths to feed...that is whose responsibility/issue...an employers? A neighbors? Yours? Mine?
And yes, they can quit if they choose to. There will be trade-offs and consequences, but they 100% absolutely can quit!
Is it cowardice? Is it because they think they can't do better than what they have?
That's all I'm saying, everyone has and makes their own choices about what they will or won't put up with. As to other article subjects , I can't/won't speak for them.
My point is we all get to choose...and im not saying there are not trade-offs, or its easy, etc. But you, me, those mentioned in this article (and those who will never be notices/mentioned) we all have the power of choice!
Can we agree on that fundamental fact already?