morals and ethics stand in the way of making money
- Thread starter OS
- Start date
I've yet to see a person with exceptional morals/ethics and a fat ass bank account.
Well exceptional ethics are relative. I'm assuming you mean exceptional morals/ethics based on the average of society. In that case, yes, not many people can make a good amount of money by doing completely good things within society.
But the truth is, the drive for money is brought on by greed. So if someone desires to get rich, regardless of what they do to get the money, the fact of the matter is that they're already unethical. Shrug, people aren't perfect. Live and learn.
Well exceptional ethics are relative. I'm assuming you mean exceptional morals/ethics based on the average of society. In that case, yes, not many people can make a good amount of money by doing completely good things within society.
But the truth is, the drive for money is brought on by greed. So if someone desires to get rich, regardless of what they do to get the money, the fact of the matter is that they're already unethical. Shrug, people aren't perfect. Live and learn.
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
<< Well exceptional ethics are relative. I'm assuming you mean exceptional morals/ethics based on the average of society. In that case, yes, not many people can make a good amount of money by doing completely good things within society. >>
Yeah that's more or less what I mean. People who are kind, patient, considerate, giving and bear good will towards all people don't conjure up images of millionaires.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,147
- 18,691
- 146
<< postulate; how much earning potential you have is inversely proportional to how moral and ethical you are. I've yet to see a person with exceptional morals/ethics and a fat ass bank account. >>
IMHO, A myth. I'm a business owner, and do fairly well for myself. I have an inflexable code of ethics I follow. My brother is the CEO of a major computer connectivity company, has made millions, and is even more moral and ethical than me.
Many of the business owners I've come to know are extremely ethical as well.
One man's "greed" is another man's ambition. The will to succeed does NOT mean one must give up his ethics or morals to do so. I think it's VERY sad that people equate success and ambition with "greed."
I'm with Amusedone. Frankly, those without morals, ethics, or scruples generally end up poorly, IMHO. If you get a reputation for being deceitful, those with the $, generally having good morals and ethics, as well as sense, won't have anything to do with you.
In my business, your absolutely unquestioned ethics is merely an entree to the work (I work with money). Those without this are not tolerated.
In my business, your absolutely unquestioned ethics is merely an entree to the work (I work with money). Those without this are not tolerated.
<< postulate; how much earning potential you have is inversely proportional to how moral and ethical you are. I've yet to see a person with exceptional morals/ethics and a fat ass bank account. >>
Yeah, well i've seen very immoral people with very low income as well.
That's probably the stupidiest thing i ever heard. 90% of charity is given by 10% of the population.
<< Yeah that's more or less what I mean. People who are kind, patient, considerate, giving and bear good will towards all people don't conjure up images of millionaires >>
Well, there's a difference between a stereotyping and your postulating... when you're postulating, you're assuming a fact, which you're not.
And i don't think that's the general view of the public anyways. It might be your view, but if that was the general view, then communism would probably be the favored system. The western world loves capitalism... they love that you can make as big of a bank account as you want or can, and they don't judge you for it... and infact, 'richer' people are often see as moral and correct than the poorer. There HAS been research on this, one which comes to mind is road rage and cars. Your more likely to get angry at somebody drying a sh1tmobile than somebody driving a $75k BMW.
There are of course many exceptions to any generalizations but you do have a point.
I don't think the rich are immoral or unethical, BUT it does take a certain awareness and persona to make it big in the corporate world. Of course, not all rich people are CEOs of major companies but I would say a large proportion of them are in someway connected to the Corporate world. And you don't rise to the top levels of a major corporation without a little politics. You will certainly have enemies who are not as ethical or moral as you might like to be.
You don't have to be immoral, but you can't be naive. When the stakes rise, there are a lot of people who will knife you in the back so you have to understand that.
I don't think the rich are immoral or unethical, BUT it does take a certain awareness and persona to make it big in the corporate world. Of course, not all rich people are CEOs of major companies but I would say a large proportion of them are in someway connected to the Corporate world. And you don't rise to the top levels of a major corporation without a little politics. You will certainly have enemies who are not as ethical or moral as you might like to be.
You don't have to be immoral, but you can't be naive. When the stakes rise, there are a lot of people who will knife you in the back so you have to understand that.
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
<< That's probably the stupidiest thing i ever heard. >>
Dear Lord, why the need to be so insulting? Do you suffer from self esteem so low that you feel the need to attack me? If you disagree with me, that's fine, but don't call people stupid just because they don't see things the same way as you.
I don't know why I bother hanging around here anymore, people here are so hostile
work in commision and learn the problems with having a concience selling a p4 that'll get you more $ than the athlon
It is one of the fundamental orientations of Western ethics: all complex ethical, moral and religious values are susceptible to reductive explanation in terms of the maximization of personal interests. This is an approach that is at least as old as Greek Epicureanism. It is an aspect of Machiavelli's fortuitous political strategems, and these are rearticulated in the moral-economies of Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Mandeville. Only with Adam Smith's popular effort to integrate the theory of utilitarian interest with moral sentiments do we find a fully mainstream explanation of the centrality of interest in moral decision-making. Smith's model did become immensely popular, though latter-day advocates of 'the invisible hand' have typically failed to acknowledge Smith's correlative belief that our market interests are naturally informed by benevolence and altruism.
Of course, this longstanding tradition mutated freely in industrial America. Protestant Evangelism, political populism, hucksterism and the 'scientific' techniques of mass marketing have constrained interest-based egoism to the point that nobody wants to believe nothing more complicated than what you can put on a f**kin' bumpersticker.
Of course, this longstanding tradition mutated freely in industrial America. Protestant Evangelism, political populism, hucksterism and the 'scientific' techniques of mass marketing have constrained interest-based egoism to the point that nobody wants to believe nothing more complicated than what you can put on a f**kin' bumpersticker.
The inverse is also true: the way we make our money has shaped our morals and ethics. From a collectivist standpoint, making a lot of money invariably involves screwing someone else over. From an individualist perspective, you have not violated any ethics because you worked harder for it and deserve it. If you make a lot of money, you're more likely to take the individualist perspective; if you don't, you're more likely to take the collectivist perspective.
I don't know Yellowperil: even in one of the most reductivist approaches to moderm ethics -- game-theory -- there are persuasive instances in which 'cooperation' by competing individual interests is more productive on a purely objective, quantitative scale than straight competition in a 'zero-sum' battle for dominance. So if somebody told you that somebody must always get screwed, it's not unlikely that you learned this supposed axiom when somebody screwed you.
I think you're referring to cooperation among similar interests along similar income lines. True, they may be competing for market share, but one isn't dependent on the other. I haven't had economics since high school, but for example, two corporations may merge or form a trust if it financially benefits both (i.e., pooling resources, lowering cost, fixing prices).
I was referring more of competing interests along different income lines(corporate execs and blue-collar assembly line workers, for example), where the individual being 'screwed' is at the mercy of the one with more power. At least this is what is focused on from the collectivist perspective. And yes, I think that axiom does come from experiences where they perceived they were being screwed.
I was referring more of competing interests along different income lines(corporate execs and blue-collar assembly line workers, for example), where the individual being 'screwed' is at the mercy of the one with more power. At least this is what is focused on from the collectivist perspective. And yes, I think that axiom does come from experiences where they perceived they were being screwed.
<< postulate; how much earning potential you have is inversely proportional to how moral and ethical you are. I've yet to see a person with exceptional morals/ethics and a fat ass bank account. >>
precicely the reason I don't have any morals and ethics.
they just get in the way of what you want to do
In the most general sense, I'm not going to get into any arguments with anybody about whether 'straight' interest-based ethics is 'right'. I know just enough about the history of ideas to know that this particular approach to ethics is only about ninety years old. You would be frowned upon quite severely by respectable society about a hundred years ago for admitting to such a cupiditous obsession with making money (even the great investor tycoons went far out of their ways to demonstrate their philanthropy). Three hundred years ago, people would have said that you had 1) no honor, 2) no virtue, 3) were a sinner, 4) were effeminate and 5) were among the most depraved and pathetic of individuals (and probably would have hurled some choice racial epithets at you as well, if not thrown you in stocks or lashed you out of the parish). Anyway, the eighties slogan 'Greed is good' is a lot like Thatcher's 'There is no Society' -- indisputably possible but highly contentious. Y'all can eat that stuff up if you wanta.
Ever heard of In-N-Out Burgers?
They give back a lot to the community and they are very profitable.
-M.T.O
They give back a lot to the community and they are very profitable.
-M.T.O
<< People who are kind, patient, considerate, giving and bear good will towards all people don't conjure up images of millionaires. >>
In my life I've known a handful of multi-millionaires. To the man, every one of them were the most generous and compassionate people you'd ever meet. They also were possesed of the strictest ethic and moral code, and all were self made.
Statements such as the above, generally come from people who've never actually had the opportunity to get to know someone of extraordinary financial achievement.
Russ, NCNE
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
<< In my life I've known a handful of multi-millionaires. To the man, every one of them were the most generous and compassionate people you'd ever meet. They also were possesed of the strictest ethic and moral code, and all were self made. >>
<< Statements such as the above, generally come from people who've never actually had the opportunity to get to know someone of extraordinary financial achievement. >>
Now that you mention it, I've met one guy who was a near millionaire and like you said, he was a good, kind, hardworking person. Although a dot commer startup.
Hmm, I don't know where my initial image came from then. I guess it's because I know a couple guys at my school who although have fairly substantial bank accounts, are into kind of shady things. (nowhere near being millionaires though) But yeah you're right, I had an unfair generalization in my head, but I'd much rather be wrong in this instance than right!
Let's look at examples of succesful people:
Software leader Bill Gates - has his own charity and all but also has made some questionable business moves.
Internet leader Steve Case - Also has made questionable business decisions.
Another leader of his own Larry Ellison - see above
My mind is completely blank now so that's all I can think of right now.
As a famous person once said, "One man's dawn is another man's sunset", so for every millionaire made there's been a millionaire lost..or something to that effect.
Software leader Bill Gates - has his own charity and all but also has made some questionable business moves.
Internet leader Steve Case - Also has made questionable business decisions.
Another leader of his own Larry Ellison - see above
My mind is completely blank now so that's all I can think of right now.
As a famous person once said, "One man's dawn is another man's sunset", so for every millionaire made there's been a millionaire lost..or something to that effect.
One of the guys in my church is loaded. Not from shady or unethical business deals, but by blessings from God and the fact he puts in 16 hour workdays and constantly making some VERY smart moves. Hard, smart work.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter