Money vs. Ethics

Actually "success" and "happiness" are ethical concepts. I define these terms as such in my manual, ETHICS: A College course, in Chapter 10, entitled What is in our Self-Interest? See pp. 54 ff. - http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7 If an individual wants to reject happiness and success in his life, wants to live without them, that's okay.

Schoof & Demerest are in the transformation business; they are not primarily out for money ...if that's what someone who doesn't know them, and who hasn't read their book, was implying. They have developed a technology which applies ethical insight. I welcome such technologies. If something helps people break bad habits and/or to adopt good (moral) habits, my ethical model is glad to embrace it and incorporate it.

There is nothing wrong with people being able to make a living as a side effect if their Life Coaching is valuable to the client. The same goes for the client: If he or she is interested in making money - yet it is not their chief goal - why are you against that ....I thought from your previous complaints that you were defending money. Don't people need to make a living? I would prefer if they all wanted to live comfortably and wanted it for every last individual;; i.e., if they want to eliminate, or drastically reduce, poverty, misery, and destitution.

Those authors freely give away the gist of their book, for those who cannot afford to buy one, when they publish on the back flyleaf the Central Question of Life. That is the core of the whole book - that, and techniques for how to answer the central question. They show a person how to live a life of continuous value creation. As far as I am concerned, this is pure ethics:!:

There is nothing wrong with people being able to make a living as a side effect if their Life Coaching is valuable to the client. The same goes for the client: If he or she is interested in making money - yet it is not their chief goal - why are you against that ....I thought from your previous complaints that you were defending money. Don't people need to make a living? I would prefer if they all wanted to live comfortably and wanted it for every last individual;; i.e., if they want to eliminate, or drastically reduce, poverty, misery, and destitution.

Hi Prof,

there seems to be a missunderstanding. I am not against making money. I just try to show that your position is inconsistent. In one of your previous posts you were against the perfectly legal practice of helping other people to pay less taxes. And now you are for earning money with such doubtful practices as coaching.

I also do not have anything against success and happiness. I was just saying that by these keywords you can identify people who are after money, not after ethics.

E.g. in his book "The way to finanical freedom" money coach Bodo Schäfer also promised success and happiness.

All the best
philohof

There is nothing wrong with people being able to make a living as a side effect if their Life Coaching is valuable to the client. The same goes for the client: If he or she is interested in making money - yet it is not their chief goal - why are you against that ....I thought from your previous complaints that you were defending money. Don't people need to make a living? I would prefer if they all wanted to live comfortably and wanted it for every last individual;; i.e., if they want to eliminate, or drastically reduce, poverty, misery, and destitution.

Hi Prof,

there seems to be a missunderstanding. I am not against making money. I just try to show that your position is inconsistent. In one of your previous posts you were against the perfectly legal practice of helping other people to pay less taxes. And now you are for earning money with such doubtful practices as coaching.

I also do not have anything against success and happiness. I was just saying that by these keywords you can identify people who are after money, not after ethics.

E.g. in his book "The way to finanical freedom" money coach Bodo Schaefercalso promised success and happiness.

All the best
philohof

Hi, philohof[

Paying less taxes is often a way to be less responsible, and therefore less ethical. Taxes, from those who can well affortd to pay a fair share, contribute to the general welfare when spent rightly, and the U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, says that a goal of the country is "To provide for the General Welfare."

You speak of "earning money with such doubtful practices as coaching." Coaching is NOT a doubtful practice. It is adult education, personalized. Education, ideally, is applied Ethics. Education ought to encourage and facilitate people to become all that they are capable of being and becoming.

By bringing up coach Bodo Schaefer, you are committing the Logical Fallacy of Excluded Middle. Just because he may be a poor example in your eyes, does not mean that all Life Coaches are like that I say once again: If you knew Harvey Schoof, or Peter Demerest, you would know two highly-moral individuals, two fine examples of what a man should be. They charge high prices to corporate types who expect (and respect it more when) such a price-point for such a real service, as what they give. For others, who can't afford as much, they charge less. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their charging a fee any more than any other tutor - such as one who teaches you Math. Many students want a transcript of the lessons, and that costs money, so they have literature for sale, such as books. I don't know why anyone is confused about these things.....

All the best,
Prov.

Paying less taxes is often a way to be less responsible, and therefore less ethical. Taxes, from those who can well affortd to pay a fair share, contribute to the general welfare when spent rightly, and the U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, says that a goal of the country is "To provide for the General Welfare."

You speak of "earning money with such doubtful practices as coaching." Coaching is NOT a doubtful practice. It is adult education, personalized. Education, ideally, is applied Ethics. Education ought to encourage and facilitate people to become all that they are capable of being and becoming.

Hi Prof,

are you now changing to call yourself Prov.?

1. Taxes. You are again mingling things: Paying less taxes is not less responsible and less ethical. Allowing rich people to pay less taxes than they should in order to give their share to community may be less responsible. But this is the task of politicians. So, here you are mingling the agents: You ascribe a task to the tax payers you should ascribe to the people who create the tax and decide, how it should be applied.

2. Sorry, I should have written "dubious" practices. My English is not so good. Of course, this was meant ironically. I was just wondering because you like certain forms of coaching and others, like financial coaching, of which tax optimization is a part, you don't like. So, one might wonder what the difference is.

3. Bodo Schäfer - this is also a misunderstanding on your part. But I thought things are sufficiently clear: When talking about Bodo Schäfer of course I was not talking about Bodo Schäfer, but about his audience. My argument was: Anybody, who wants to sell people "knowledge" about money (and how to become rich in 7 years) will promise them success and happiness. It's a code: In our society "success" and "happiness" are mostly understood as just two other words for "money". I did not say that Bodo Schäfer is a bad person, nor that your two heroes are bad persons.

Best wishes
philohof

You write: "In one of your previous posts you were against the perfectly legal practice of helping other people to pay less taxes. "

That is not the case. You are distorting what I said: If you will go back and read the post where I first mentioned the tax counselor, who advises wealthy people - who are the only ones who can afford his fees - how to dodge paying their taxes....I said only that he creates no real wealth.

He is a personal friend of mine so I know well what he does for a living. He is a libertarian who has no use for government except for police and armies. He thinks he is doing a useful service.

I would prefer to discuss the improvements you would suggest in my writing - both the style and the content. Of course Ethics has implications for Politics and Political Science. I don't want to get distracted into those either. Let's just discuss ethics and morality here. There are other forums for other topics. Tell us how ethics can be consistent. Be constructive, please.

Hi, Prof.

Do you believe that people are born with differing capacities to act "ethically", or do you believe everyone has the same capacity but may be hindered by circumstance and education? For example, do people steal (e.g. avoid taxes) because, by nature, they prefer to steal, or do they steal because they can't see any other way of providing for their needs? If you believe that some people prefer to steal, then what do you propose as the means of getting them to behave counter to their natural inclinations?

Cheers,
enegue.

Hi, Prof.
Do you believe that people are born with differing capacities to act "ethically", or do you believe everyone has the same capacity but may be hindered by circumstance and education? For example, do people steal (e.g. avoid taxes) because, by nature, they prefer to steal, or do they steal because they can't see any other way of providing for their needs? If you believe that some people prefer to steal, then what do you propose as the means of getting them to behave counter to their natural inclinations?
Cheers, enegue.

Greetings, enegue.

Thanks for a very good question !

I agree more with this alternative you offer: "they steal because they can't see any other way of providing for their need". It should be noted that some (about 1% of the world's population) have a genetic defect in their brains which gives them what Hartman dubbed "a case of moral astigmatism." The most-disabled among them are unable to feel empathy or compassion. They are the psychopaths and the sociopaths.

If someone from a deprived backgrond gets in the habit of shop-lifting, say, they will rationalize it to themselves, make excuses. They find that they are good at it, and they get away with it for many years. They are habituated to it. Some day - maybe 40 or 50 years later !! - they now have a reputation and a career to lose, a good job, and they are finally detected by a shop owner - or his security personnel. They lose their good job. As the deceptive petty thief relects upon it, he realizes that all he ever gained from it was really not worth it.

So this highly-probable scenario illustrates why I come down on the side that ignorance - as to how to do better - or as to what is the better way to live - is at bottom the most frequent case ...and incidentally is the cause of most all immorality that is committed.

Hi, Prof.

Sociopathy, psychopathy and deprivation don't suffice as the reasons people steal. Not all people who have come from a deprived background, steal. Some people from affluent backgrounds, steal. So, there really must exist people who simply prefer to steal. Covetousness - the desire to possess something beyond your means - is probably the chief motivation for theft.

If some people prefer to steal, then what do you propose as the means of getting them to behave counter to their natural inclinations?

Cheers,
enegue

Covetousness - the desire to possess something beyond your means - is probably the chief motivation for theft.

Hi, enegue,

covetousness is also the main drive that makes today's economy go. If you take it away, you will make it break down and push millions of people into hunger and despair.

Hi, enegue,

covetousness is also the main drive that makes today's economy go. If you take it away, you will make it break down and push millions of people into hunger and despair.

Do you really think so?

People still have legitimate needs that must be met, and the economy would roll on as it always has. It's the manufactured "needs" that should be addressed. The things that have created a situation in which one income is not sufficient to sustain a family: houses that are too big; everyone owning a personal automobile; fashion; entertainment, etc, etc.

Do you know what happens when a nation becomes prosperous, the people have so much money they don't know what to do with it, and instead of exercising foresight and wisdom in it's use, the people let themselves be manipulated by unscrupulous entrepreneurs to spend their excess funds on things they are told they need. These are the well-to-do thieves, Prof

Why do we live in such big cities, when it's clear there is an optimum size in regard to the efficient management of waste? The first question to be asked in regard to any endeavour should be, "What do we do with the waste?" 75% of the population in my country, Australia, live less than 50km from the coast. If we were going to make wise use of all our excess money we could invest in ways to green the interior and decentralise production. Governments don't want to pursue grand plans any more, because they become an easy target for opportunistic opposition parties who convince the people that such things are not in their best interest. Where would you prefer to spend your money, people: bigger houses; more cars; fashion; entertainment; or on researching and developing new ways of scaling down the size of big cities and moving people further from the coast to ensure quality of life for the generations to come?

I could go on, but I won't.

Cheers,
enegue

I would prefer to discuss the improvements you would suggest in my writing - both the style and the content. Of course Ethics has implications for Politics and Political Science. I don't want to get distracted into those either. Let's just discuss ethics and morality here. There are other forums for other topics. Tell us how ethics can be consistent. Be constructive, please.

Hi Prof,

of course we can talk about ethics. If you would say something about ethics, we could try it.

I went back to your fist post in this thread to see, if you said anything about ethics there. But the only thing you said there, was, that you want and don't want to compare it with the desire for money.

1st sentence: "Which is more valuable ...material things or the ethical life?" - seems that you want to compare ethics and money.
2nd sentence: "Of course, it is not a choice between one or the other: a person - whether very wealthy or very poor - can be highly ethical. Or both may exhibit, and/or exemplify, immorality." - Aha, now you changed your mind.
Penultimate paragraph: "Do you forum members here at least agree that being ethical is better than the love of money for its own sake" - Yes, we do agree. We do not love money for its own sake. We love it, because we want to buy a big Mercedes Benz with it.

The problem is, that until now you did not say anything about ethics. With the exeption of your manual, maybe. So, what you could do, is, you could give us some examples of habits or virtues you want to promote.

Best wishes
philohof

I would prefer to discuss the improvements you would suggest.... Tell us how ethics can be consistent. Be constructive, please.

Hi Prof,

...you did not say anything about ethics. With the exeption of your manual...

Best wishes
philohof

That's quite an exception, isn't it

Open up and read this little scribble: http://tinyurl.com/24cs9y7 to learn - among a few other things - what habits I would encourage. As you will note, one of the habits has to do with attitude. The third appendix encourages us to see things from different perspectives. You may skip the first couple of chapters as you already know about those topics.

Hi Prof.,

no this is no exeption. I do not want to read manuals when discussion in an online forum.

But, even though, I read a little bit of your manual. I have read Appendix III. You recommend there to mingle three different kinds of ethics (you continue mingling things) and from that you expect more clarity!!!

Hi there, Philohof

Every reader of it here can decide for himself, or herself, whether - in Appendix Three of ETHICS A College Course - I "recommend there to mingle three different kinds of ethics" as you charge me with doing.

I appreciate your reluctance to read a tract or article when you would rather discuss issues at a Forum, but there are times when a topic requires that we study a presentation so that it serves as the basis of the relevant discussion. Say the topic is "ethics" and you want to understand where this participant in the dialog is "coming from," how he looks at the subject, whether he has something of value to offer to enhance and upgrade the topic, then you will read the prerequisite basis for the discussion.
If it was too much for you to glance at the chapter "What Is Ethics" - which is Chapter 6 in that text, on pp. 26 ff. - then perhaps you can bring yourself to scan the contents of LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, an essay that discusses ethics throughout its pages. After you comprehend that argument (which is to be viewed in its entirety) we will have a basis for discussion. That particular booklet is NOT a manual. It does introduce a new way of looking at ethics. It is futuristic in that regard.

In any of my posts this old adage applies: If the suit doesn't fit, please don't wear it !!!!

Of course people who are rigid in their thinking - present company excepted - will not be capable of considering all that novelty: their mind is already made up as to what ethics has to be. It is the way they are used to, and no other. They get what Alvin Tofffler called 'Future Shock.'

For the paper, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, see this PDF-FILE:
wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/Living_ ... _Lifef.pdf

-

I'm fairly new here so I have to admit I'm behind and have not been able to give this thread the necessary pondering.
An RBE or Zietgiest type economy seems inevitable in our future.
As I try to examine money vs ethics I think much like Prof.
Society has created a money scale as a measure of status. To this I rebel. I am what anyone would consider financially successful. I don't dress the part or live the part. My cars are typical as are my clothes. If I have a journey to make that is under 2 miles I walk. I muse to myself as I see fat ladies in their SUV's eying me as a car-less individual. My house is very nice and somewhat large but is situated in a part of town that doesn't gouge status seekers with exorbitant taxes.
As I read all the comments here I see the status scale applied to money as the main fault in the system.