Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Cash-Based Ethics

0 helpful
25 replies

by bucky kaufman (mcsd)

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

re:
(https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=163536&messageID=1678311)

TechRepublic member "olprof67" says that morality is measured in dollars and cents. This belief has terrible implications in the tech business world.

For instance, many dot-coms were founded by folks with similarly sociopathic values. They would register a domain name, put up a web page, set up a fake business plan and then con some sucker into buying it from him for a zillion dollars.

Of course, this business model fell apart - but still, many NeoCons still subscribe to this idea.

What do you think? Can the tech industry *ever* recover with these kinds of ideals so common - or will a reliance on such values force America into the role of a third-world nation, corrupt and self-destructive?

25 replies

by packratt

I believe the equation is that the more money one has the more likely it becomes that something unethical/immoral was done to obtain it.

by garion11

LMAO...still up to your old tricks??

Its good to believe things...especially stuff that you just stated...its a free country and you are allowed to have an opinion.

I believe that the more money one has the more likely one has earned it. Not saying some people haven't earned it unethically or immorally...but the majority of people that have money in this country (and for that matter in the world) have earned it by selling a product or service. Atleast thats what I believe.

But if you could define what "unethical" and "immoral" are we can go even further with this discussion.

by packratt

Just checkin the old stomping grounds...

I suppose the question you pose is that of the relativist, i.e. is there such a thing as morals/ethics and if so is one set more valid than another? Of course, moral relitivism is the philosophy of scoundrels and thieves who wish to rationalize away the need to adhere to anything other than what at best could be described as situationalism or at worst naked greed and megalomania.

That aside, I'll put forth the argument that morality is simply nothing more or less than the desire to do the least harm and the persuit thereof.

To that end, how many billionares have not lied, despoiled the commons, hoisted harmful products on consumers, created unsafe workplaces, sought to pay workers subsistence wages, participated in slavery, cheated business partners and investors, stolen ideas from others, or any number of other acts construde as unethical to all but the moral relitivist?

What is that saying? It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates to heaven?

by ccollins

Point of pedantry here - it's eye of the needle, which is the little doorway in your city gates for people to get in after hours. Being small it's difficult to stuff your camel through but not impossible. Semantics.

by gralfus

I've heard that said many times (about it being an actual doorway in a wall) but have never seen historic reference to it. Is that a real thing, or just a loophole to make the wealthy feel like the words of Jesus don't really apply to them?

by john.a.wills

It's not a loop-hole, because camels can't get through that gate. So even the rich - not just the rich - can't get into Heaven. But with God all things are possible.

by ccollins

Depends on which version of the bible you base your faith on, really. I like Hugh Schonfeld's Original New Testament. I seem to remember Jesus's buddy Matt being a tax collector, so he squeezed his camel good and proper, then. As you can't get a camel through a needle then he must either be an anachronism or maybe it was a mistranslation. The door theory sounds more likely to me. Rich people are more likely to convert if they believe it's physically possible.

by packratt

Thank you for the clarification.

Of course, even if improbable, nothing is impossible.

I'm sure there are one or two kind hearted, moral, and ethically exemplary rich people out there somewhere. ;)

by protiusx

Ted Turner, or John Kerry, or pick any Kennedy, or ? Wait a minute, sorry you said ?kind hearted, moral and ethical? Sorry my bad.

by olprof67

That money (if honestly earned, rather than received as a government payment) represents the most accurate measure of a free society's decisions.

Honest money is a store of value -- no more, no less.

That money can be donated to charity, used for necessities, invested in such a way as to increase its utility (insurance might be viewed as a "defensive multiplier"), or wasted on shallow entertainment and porn.

If it's your money, it's your choice; but most actions of government are intended to take some of that power out of your hands, by relieving you of your hard-earned income.

Governments which find the supply of honest money drying up revert to something worse; stealing a portion of your life through conscript labor. It makes perfect sense that it's the liberal-socialist dreamers who prattle about "national service."

Because they've run out of honest money to steal.

by bucky kaufman (mcsd)

That's not what you said. I quoted you exactly.

It's my fault, though. I *know* better than to take you Bush loyalists at your word, without waiting for the standard "what I meant to say" disclaimer.

by olprof67

Is that those who completely dismiss socialist values have reached a higher level of moral evolution.

Don't excpect any retraction of that; incitement of the rabble in the name of class-warfare has been the strategy of thugs and losers from time immemorial.

You cannot help striving people climb out of poverty by trying to drag others down into it.

by ccollins

So government payment is not honest? I've paid national insurance all my working life and spent two short periods on the dole (few months). So you are saying I was dishonest by claiming bennies for that period? Even though I'd paid in? What about if you're nuts and can't work?

by packratt

What answer is it that you expect to hear from those who judge a fellow human's worth by dollar signs alone?

Such is, to them, the ultimate form of morality and governance... Amorality and plutocracy.

by olprof67

As a society evolves, basic insurance measures develop. It's the responsibility of any forward-thinking individual to participate, and the private sector will, because of the disciplines of the market, do a more-efficient job.

There are of course, those who fall between the cracks, those who do through no fault of their own have to rely on a safety net. And, as I've said before, the capitalist democracies have the strongest safety nets.

But, as with most of the so-called "homeless" who litter our streets, there are large numbers who just find a responsible adult lifestyle to be too much of drag.

In the end, even these vagrants will find a warm place to die at someone else's expense. But their present problems, in most cases, are the result of their own faults of character. And the left-wingers are always cooking up excuses to relieve them of their responsiblities at the expense of the rest of us.

If you want to characterize what I've just said as "greed", that's your right, and your delusion.

by bucky kaufman (mcsd)

re:
But their present problems, in most cases, are the result of their own faults of character.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----

That looks like another one of those "faith-based" statistics - with no basis in reality.

It's consistant with your claim that morality is to be measured in dollars and cents; that O.J. is more moral than Sister Theresa.

Since you post this on a tech board, I assume you're a techie.

In another TechRepublic threat, many of your fellows were advising a techie to sabotage his coworkers work to keep his own job safe.

This would go a long way towards explaining why the tech industry has collapsed.

This makes it all-the-more incumbant upon the rest of us to remain vigilant against hate-mongerers working their way into our workspaces. It doesn't just make the workplace unpleasant - it jeapordizes the business.

by protiusx

Well at that point you?re having tea with the Hatter and the Queen so it doesn?t really matter does it? Kidding!
I happen to live in a place that has a great deal of hatters and they are a sad lot. I ride the bus every morning with a small Jewish woman who works with them and I asked her about the homeless and what makes them live that way. She said that the mental institutions are under-funded and were mandated back in the 80?s to discharge mentally disturbed people if they were deemed non-threatening. I think it?s sad and feel that this is one tax I wouldn?t mind paying. These people need to be cared for and medicated (when necessary) for their own good. If they were institutionalized then they could be fed (I am sure malnutrition plays a big role in contributing to their psychosis) properly and hopefully rehabilitated so they could re-enter society productively.
There are some instances where the government does pay for welfare and rightly so. I have no problem with this either. My sister-in-law (for example) is mentally handicapped and receives welfare, food stamps, and Medicare from the government. If she didn?t have the little she gets from the government she wouldn?t be able to live as self sufficiently as she does.

by olprof67

Finding a way to get these people off the streets and into relative safety shouldn't be that much of a budget-buster.

But an awful lot of those self-defined "advocates" are trying to confer full legal rights on the mentally-disfunctional.

Who will then, of course, be signed-up to vote the straight liberal-Democratic ticket.

by packet spoofer

"nipple"....their allegance is expected.....yeah...demanded.....
I work for a union.....it is a joke here.....pay your dues to us and we will represent you (your political views) by funding one candidate(the one we feel is the right one for you) and he/she always manages to be a liberal.....and by the way....don't even think about mentioning that you are a conservative......bad things may happen to your tires.....is this democracy?

by olprof67

Most of the hate-mongers I've met at this site are on the left side...

And what they mostly hate are the facts...

And their own failures.

And they're looking for someone to blame.

Most of the people I work with have less formal education than I do....

And they're quite a bit younger....

And more conservative economically....

And don't want to be spoon-fed by the "mainstream" media.

And while the discipline is rigid and the atmosphere can sometimes seem predatory,

every day is still different.

And at age 55.....I call that "success". :)

by bucky kaufman (mcsd)

If you're so upset about being a member of a union - you DO have a choice. It's totally NUTS for you to continue to support an organization you don't support.

by olprof67

I was also a member of a union (United Food & Commercial Workers) 1978-1994.

I didn't get a choice -- the union shop is legal in Pennsylvania -- but in fairness, I didn't have a problem with it.

It was my experience that the union's primary strategies were (1) to prevent the firing of all but the most incompetent or flagrantly criminal employees, and (2) to address almost all other grievances through calls to political action.

The union took little interest in what were once called "work rules" -- the processes in my shop were largely automated and, so long as basic safety laws were strictly observed, the management was free to run the machinery at whatever speed in excess of capacity they could get away with.

In addition, concerns at individual work stations were seldom addressed. Safety measures such as shielding and "lock-out/tag-out" were rigidly enforced, but if an individual employee were overloaded, things just went their merry way until the situation became unworkable.

Another common practice was to encourage union stewards to seek promotion to front-line supervisors -- this was NOT done to co-opt union authority -- the feeling on both sides was that the employee was usually a moderate who could see both sides of the issue.

In summary, the union recognized it had little real power and spent most of its efforts keeping the membership convinced that despite that, they'd be worse off without it, The management were so cowed by their supervisors that they managed to substantiate the union's case without really trying.

One thing I still remember though -- the name of that union when I first had to join it.

Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen

"Where does youse want dis side o'beef, lady?" :)

This discussion is closed to new replies.