Ethics

Wescli Wardest wrote: I have never been a fan of broad generalizations, or sweeping statements… I agree that too many people in the world seem to focus more on profit taking than what might be considered “ethical business” practices. But not everyone in a group behaves in such a manner.

I'm not saying all either and agree way too many. Just look at what happens in Corporate America.

It's funny this topic has been brought up. Lack of ethical consciousness and the resulting estrangement of the individual from their human nature as a consequence of imperial capitalism will likely be the topic of my thesis for my MBA and doctorate thereafter. All of you have raised excellent points of consideration.

The fact of the matter is that we have a capitalistic model that encourages, by virtue of its basic foundations, unethical practices in just about every faucet of life. Avarice has been the primary motivating element of the system, or rather the concept that self-interest promotes abundance for all (Adam Smith and Bernard Mandeville Concepts). Yet that assumption has been proven false. It does promote wealth generation but fails to evenly distribute it among all participating people within the defined population. Rather we see wealth concentration in a small population. This increases human suffering as it allows a small collection of plutocrats to consolidate power which leads to corruption and exploitation. Further, the system is predicated on vicious behavior and its growth. People would not consume at such obnoxious levels if a virtuous existence were advocated. Virtue is not concerned with the "invidious consumption" that Veblin speaks to in his works. We would see growth stagnation which simply cannot exist for capitalism to operate as intended; this is a tenant of Adam Smith's, capitalism requires perpetual growth; ergo the derivative crisis and housing bubble of 2008. But because vanity, pride, lust, greed, sloth, etc... are advocated the people go out and purchase that shiny new "insert material thing here"

Humanity has chosen a path devoid of ethical considerations as a systematic whole; perhaps unintentionally, but certainly as a result of apathy, which may as well be advocacy. We did not, again as a whole, choose the path of Assisi, Goathe, Lao Tzu, etc... We have followed Mandeville, Machiavelli, and Smith's model which has translated to a very self-centered and materialistic based society rooted in selfish action. One need only observe the facts; 5% of the world's population (America) consumes 25% of it's annual resources and generates 30% of its pollution. That model is not replicable by other nations; it is a simple matter of math. As such, western first world societies are propped up above other developing societies. Then exploitation follows via over-leveraging through fiscal instruments (Manfred Max-Neef) in an effort to extract resources to perpetuate the model and provide expansionary avenues of limited growth.

Lack of virtue was the intention of the installed system to promote profit gain, ethical atrocities are the resulting side-effect. We must consequently work to promote a shift in societal thinking from vice to virtue. This unfortunately is much easier said than done. As the bourgeoisie maintain a strong hold on the people through political rhetoric, belief structures, and the media.

Allineare wrote: It's funny this topic has been brought up. Lack of ethical consciousness and the resulting estrangement of the individual from their human nature as a consequence of imperial capitalism will likely be the topic of my thesis for my MBA and doctorate thereafter. All of you have raised excellent points of consideration.

The fact of the matter is that we have a capitalistic model that encourages, by virtue of its basic foundations, unethical practices in just about every faucet of life. Avarice has been the primary motivating element of the system, or rather the concept that self-interest promotes abundance for all. Yet that assumption has been proven false. It does promote wealth generation but fails to evenly distribute it among all participating people within the defined population. Rather we see wealth concentration in a small population. This increases human suffering as it allows a small collection of plutocrats to consolidate power which leads to corruption and exploitation. Further, the system is predicated on vicious behavior and its growth. People would not consume if a virtuous existence we advocated as virtue is not concerned with the "invidious consumption" that Veblin speaks to in his works. We would see growth stagnation which simply cannot exist for capitalism to operate as intended. But because vanity, pride, lust, greed, sloth, etc... are advocated the people go out and purchase that shiny new "insert material thing here"

Humanity has chosen a path devoid of ethical considerations as a whole; perhaps unintentionally, but certainly as a result of apathy, which may as well be advocacy. We did not choose the path of Assisi, Goathe, Lao Tzu, etc... We have followed Mandeville, Machiavelli, and Smith's model which has translated to a very self-centered and materialistic based society rooted in selfish action.

Lack of virtue was the intention of the installed system, ethical atrocities are the resulting side-effect. We must consequently work to promote a shift in societal thinking from vice to virtue. This unfortunately is much easier said than done. As the bourgeoisie maintain a strong hold on the people through political rhetoric, belief structures, and the media.

As a business man in what you would proabable call a greed business for 30 years I think you're going way over the top on this. It's not that bad.

I appreciate and respect your feedback. I'm a businessman myself as a strategy analyst, for a worldwide bank no less lol. I'm only 25 so I do not have the level of experience you have, but I make my claims based upon research and observations I've made in my academic and professional career. I don't believe I've over exaggerated the issues, but you are certainly entitled to your opinions.

If you get a chance I suggest reading: Economics Unmasked, The End of Growth or America Beyond Capitalism. Best wishes, may the force be with you.

but I make my claims based upon research and observations I've made in my academic and professional career

Just give everything a bit more time.

I always viewed ethics as codified morals. This is foolish. You can't make people be moral. In fact, you can't even get everyone to agree on what moral is. Any code will be lacking because it automatically benefits the person who is willing to cheat.

I have been in the work force for the better part of my life. (I so can’t wait to retire!) And not everyone is bad, just as not everyone is good. Often times it seems that people will try to get away with what they think they can get away with… if you know what I mean.

And, it has been my observation, that the ones which push ethics in the workplace the most are the ones you really have to watch for. Not always of course, but I would caution everyone to be aware of those that emphasize what you do naturally. What I mean by that is, I conduct business in what I would think a good way. I don’t cheat, lie, steal, mislead, misrepresent or do things that would cost others for my benefit. Of course I get paid, but I do my best and try to “earn” my wages. I don’t even consider that others wouldn’t be doing the same. So, it is when I see someone running around spouting off propaganda about proper behavior I can’t help but wonder why. No one else is having an issue… what is it that they feel the need to “protect” themselves from?

That’s all.

Wescli Wardest wrote: ...but I would caution everyone to be aware of those that emphasize what you do naturally.

What human nature is is the philosophical foundation from which ethical theories develop. Ethical principles differ depending on what one decides is human nature. If a human being is believed to be 'naturally good' (Rousseau) or 'Fallen' (Biblical) the respective ethical theory will reflect that belief. The same is true if 'rational' (Kant) or 'selfish' (Hobbes) defines what is human. It may be the case that an ethical philosophy rejects a universal human nature (Sartre). One source of conflict regarding ethical principles and actions is the result of differences in the philosophy of what constitutes human nature.

Why are these so broad sweeping? Why do we all have to be one? Why not a combination? What if people don't have the same nature?

Touché...

It is always good to be aware of one’s statements and at least try not to make generalizations. Sometimes the topic covers a vast array of "things" in which only a broad statement would cover... but it is important not to base an argument off a generalization.