I am sorry to say, but I never told anything about business is always good for all. I said that decission to make a deal even if I don't like other person can be good for both. If it is, that saying can be used. Why shouldn't be? If it is voluntary... So, maybe I didn't understand, what was that about my dogma?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2021, 10:14 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:04 am The old saw "Nothing personal; it's only business" says 'This may be immoral, but it makes me money, so it's OK."We know this? What is it that says business is good for both sides?
I think the basis for your sentiment is not factual, but a faith position. It is a statement of devotion to Capitalism, and all that it entails. Business, trade and commerce can be seen as desirable from some points of view, but not all.
The moral desirability of Capitalism is what is being questioned here, by me and a few others, and your response clearly comes from an exclusively pro-Capitalist perspective. I do not attack you for this, I merely point it out. But I do challenge your assertion that 'business' is good for all. Not everyone accepts the dogma of your $$$ Church of Capitalism $$$.
Social Media Misinformation
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: November 7th, 2021, 4:52 pm
Re: Social Media Misinformation
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Social Media Misinformation
No? It looks to me like that's what you said:
"Who cares, wins"
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023