Money vs. Ethics

Greetings, eyesofastranger

You write : "I am what anyone would consider financially successful." That applies to me too. I am fairly comfortable - so far.

For many years I have been an advocate of a Priceless Society, which is how I refer to a moneyless economy, with a rational distribution of the world's resources. I want the world to work for everyone !
I am honored to have had as a friend, R. Buckminster Fuller, author of CRITICAL PATH. I worked with Bucky in his later years. He had enormous vision; he was a designer among many other gifts ....a true genius. He said we don't need to deprive anyone, as we re-arrange things so that all people get enough to eat and an adequate place to live, at least. He invented the dome house, among his myriad of other inventions.

Yes the zeitgeist movement has the right idea: a Resource-based Economy. Good luck and more power to them.

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.

Hi Prof,

in this point I just think that you are not right.

What you are doing here is, that you pack something that is ethically incorrect (I am more important than others, read my manual.) into an ethically acceptable sounding form (Some topics are more complex, they need a little bit of study).

As for the second part of the argument: It is just incorrect. Everything that can be said, can also be said in a conversation - and our discussion thread is a kind of a conversation.

And as for the first part of the argumentation: It is, as I have said: In reality you claim that you are more important than we are. And this is why we should read your manuals.

The first question I should ask you here, is: Why don't you read my books before, if you want to talk with me. Of course, my books are written in German, but google translator has already been invented.

But the much more important question is: Why should we lose time reading your manuals, if we want to know something about ethics. Shouldn't we instead, to reach the biggest outcome, read Plato, Aristoteles, Seneca, Spinoza, Hume, Mill, Hegel, Nietzsche, Habermas, MacIntyre, Martha Nussbaum, Philippa Foot, von Kutschera and so on?

I really do not like it that you make me look like somebody who lacks the inclination to study.

Best wishes
philohof

... In reality you claim that you are more important than we are. ...: Why don't you read my books before, if you want to talk with me. ... Shouldn't we instead...read Plato, Aristoteles, Seneca, Spinoza, Hume, Mill, Hegel, Nietzsche, Habermas, MacIntyre, Martha Nussbaum, Philippa Foot, von Kutschera and so on?

I really do not like it that you make me look like somebody who lacks the inclination to study.

Best wishes
philohof

I am not more important than you are. I never claimed to be more important than you are.

I would like to read your books before we dialogue but I don't know the titles, or how to look them up, since I don't know your real name. You know mine, and can look up my biography; however I don't know yours, else I would be glad to know your viewpoints in Philosophy ...especially in Ethics. You said at first you agreed with all the ethical principles I presented, but it seemed you were objecting to the style, and the manner of presentation. So I then inquired as to how that could be improved.

I have already read all those authors you list, and would not mind at all if everyone here did also. My project is to ask how we can integrate all the best that they teach into a new package, based upon logic, and making eminent sense.

With regard to your last sentence, I urged everyone not to "wear the suit if it did not fit them," i.e., if what I wrote did not apply to them. I really wish you had not taken anything personally. I respect you, and I want to be a friend.

The point that my first post was driving at is this: Money is a Systemic Value; Ethics arises when we Intrinsically-Value individuals. Since Intrinsic Value is - as a value - far more valuable than Systemic Value, Ethics, and moral values, are far more valuable - and thus immensely-better than, money considerations; and thus moral values ought take priority over the pursuit of money - if it ever comes to such a choice.That's all I was trying to say.

Cordially yours,

prof

I do not have the answers to the problems we have with our value system and the more I study human behavior the more I lose hope.
The majority of the problems we have seem to be environmental and neurological, with neurological being the lesser probability of the two.

It seems that we have many people that have little to no interest in ethics, it is not only ethics but other social and political problems. It seems that if people are some what happy in their life that they are less likely to worry about others suffering. This problem seems to be one that has been taught for a very long time.

I have seen where primates acted out in a very bad way and the bad behavior did end but it took some sort of illness to kill of all of the adult males. When the females gave birth to their offspring the new males did not display the bad behavior that their fathers use to!
It does seem that most of our ethical problems are learned and that we have many stumbling blocks that stand in our way of an ethical evolution. It seems that our greatest enemy is beliefs!

I would love to share a very intelligent video about beliefs but this site would not allow me!

Let me clarify something. I have nothing against money. It is our relationship to money that can be the problem. The casino part of the financial industry operates on the emotions of Fear and Greed. These emotions keep us from being fully moral. The problem arises when we make money into a god. This is greed. When people think money is the highest value, they will do anything for money. This results in immorality. This corrupts a person.
[/url]

Hi Prof,

thank you for your clarification,

.... You cannot change the functioning of this system by changing the values of people. ...) What you would have to do, is change the system, change its rules: You are taking a political/legal problem for an ethical one.

... it could also be that you want to say, you want to change people's values in order to change public opinion in order to put pressure on politicians to change the financial industry and its rules. Ok.,
.. but in this case you are also not talking directly about ethics;

...an ethical question in this context would be: How could a stock trader behave ethically in today's financial industry?

...you seem to prefer: How should we change the circumstances, so that acting ethically becomes easy and safe!

Best wishes
philohof

Greetings, philosof

I was struck by your statement: "You cannot change the functioning of this system by changing the values of people. ...) What you would have to do, is change the system, change its rules"

It seems to me that ethical insight takes priority before worthwhile political change, before we devise better systems, better institutions. For why would anyone design a superior more-effective system if he/she didn’t have ethical awareness to begin with?

Am I wrong?

And why isn't talking about changing people's values talking directly about ethics? Am I mistaken when I observe that what you wrote sound like what those people say who seem to be expressing an ethic of resignation with the status quo -- the sort of ethic that was prevalent in India up until recently -- as you hold that the only legitimate ethical discussion is how to solve a dilemma within currently-existing structures rather than any consideration of possible new contexts. I am a Futurist in the tradition of Buckminster Fuller and Ray Kurzweil as well as being a philosopher. I don't just ask "Why?" I ask also "Why not?"

-- Updated Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:06 pm to add the following --

Let’s be solution-minded! And pro-active. Let’s scour the country and the world for “best practices.” Let’s learn from many sources, from high-performing institutions and organizations, so we can replicate the elements that contribute to strong performance.

Foundations give grants to efforts to dispose of outmoded procedures, and to learn and to share what works, to apply it to relevant situations.

The will to do this originates in the ethical mind and in the person of good character. For he or she exercises good judgment. It starts with one’s inner life. It emerges from ‘the improving Self.’

Coleridge noted that “the more we know, the greater our thirst for knowledge.” Seneca observed: “Principles are like seeds; they are little things which do much good, if the mind which receives them has the right attitudes.”

“Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful we must carry it with us or we find it not,”said Emerson. He points out that freedom consists in liberty from negative attitudes and emotions. He writes: “Don’t be a cynic, and wail and bemoan. Omit the negative propositions. Don’t waste yourself in rejection, nor bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good.”

We can describe a right life as one which follows natural and beneficial rules. “Such is the picture of a beautiful life and could we see it with our own eyes, as Plato says, great would be our desire to possess Wisdom.” -- Cicero.

To understand the process of value creation - how people of good character create better systems and better alternative institutions - see the clear explanation at onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=5405