Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2016, 03:51 AM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Ethics does not exist in a nice, clean, and segregated bubble. You cannot simply remove ethics from the discussion by fiat. Actions have consequences, and when those consequences have an affect or moral actors, those actions have ethical implications. Businesses do not operate in a vacuum, so it is impossible for their actions to not have ethical consequences. Trying to repeatedly sever the two looks bad, it gives the impression that you want to distance them from culpability.
I have no interest in what is perceived to be an ethical or non ethical outcome.

I don't accept there is any ethical culpability.

I don't want the moral police, I don't want a government dishing out vengeance (justice) on immoral people or immoral businesses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 03:56 AM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 01:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, you forgot this. Drinking Beverage

(07-10-2016 02:03 AM)Stevil Wrote:  It also shows, that painting all businesses as evil, as being utter non-sense. Probably in direct opposition of some of the things that EvolutionKills (which Thumpalumpacus and morondog and others seem to be giving out frequent likes to). I can't fathom how so much hatred is shown by people on this forum towards businesses and, in general, success.
I didn't forget that at all.
They did give a like to your post.
I didn't know if they agree with your stance on business being evil or not so I used the general "people" form rather than state their names.
Thumpalampacas and morondog have since made it clear that they don't hold onto the position that businesses are evil. Perhaps it's just you that holds this position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 03:59 AM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 01:36 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  That is the post you refused to discuss with MD.
Sorry, I still don't know which post you are talking about.

(09-10-2016 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  And the refusal to clarify, as you were asked, leads me to question your motives more.

I haven't refused to clarify anything. Tell me which post or which question and I will answer it.

Do you not remember your own replies?

(10-10-2016 01:36 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  by imputing that I hold businesses to be evil, which I don't.

I never said that you hold businesses to be evil, it came from EK, Chas then presumed to tell me what evil meant.

Actually, you did, by lumping me with others you have (rightly or wrongly) asserted feel that way.

I'm not in the mood to go digging through this thread right now in order to copy your own words back to you; if they don't stick in your head now, my inclination is to think that you are arguing off-the-cuff without much coherence. Perhaps tomorrow with a little coffee in me I'll take the time to satisfy your request to have your own words fed back to you. But really, you're expected to keep up with what you yourself post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
10-10-2016, 04:06 AM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:51 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have no interest in what is perceived to be an ethical or non ethical outcome.

I don't accept there is any ethical culpability.

That's your problem. It seems that most of the people agreeing with me also see the abuse and destruction caused in the name of profits as having a level of culpability, while you don't. Like it or not, the denial of that culpability makes you appear to be complacent with it.


(10-10-2016 03:51 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't want the moral police, I don't want a government dishing out vengeance (justice) on immoral people or immoral businesses.

See? This seems entirely incongruous with you claiming you are okay with regulation. I mean, why do we regulate? Often it an attempt to impose morality and ethics (fairness in competition, private and public safety, protection of the environment, etc.) where they otherwise would be ignored. It's an integral part of the equation, and you putting your foot down and stomping in protest just makes you seem to be a petulant child. Ignoring ethical culpability doesn't make it vanish.

We already police morality, it's called 'law'.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:51 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 03:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Ethics does not exist in a nice, clean, and segregated bubble. You cannot simply remove ethics from the discussion by fiat. Actions have consequences, and when those consequences have an affect or moral actors, those actions have ethical implications. Businesses do not operate in a vacuum, so it is impossible for their actions to not have ethical consequences. Trying to repeatedly sever the two looks bad, it gives the impression that you want to distance them from culpability.
I have no interest in what is perceived to be an ethical or non ethical outcome.

I don't accept there is any ethical culpability.

I don't want the moral police, I don't want a government dishing out vengeance (justice) on immoral people or immoral businesses.

And that is precisely what you are being criticized for.

Businesses must be held accountable for doing harm.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
10-10-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: Do or Die
Here in Australia, we're currently investigating how it can be that companies operating here—such as Aldi, Google, Apple—are avoiding or not paying billions of dollars in Federal taxation.

If one pays $600 for an iPad in Australia, then $550 is paid to Apple Ireland and out of the $550, $220 is not taxed anywhere in the world. This means that, in simple terms, around 40 per cent of the payments we make to buy Apple products here has escaped Australian tax, and at the same time escaped tax anywhere in the world.

According to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) Apple has paid tax of just 0.7 per cent on its turnover of $27 billion over the past 14 years, equal to only $189 million. It's estimated that around $9 billion in profit has been shifted offshore by Apple to minimise its taxation—and worldwide in the past four years alone, Apple has avoided paying tax on $58 billion. (all AUD)

—Enuff sed. Dodgy

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
10-10-2016, 12:41 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:59 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 01:36 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I never said that you hold businesses to be evil, it came from EK, Chas then presumed to tell me what evil meant.


Actually, you did, by lumping me with others you have (rightly or wrongly) asserted feel that way.
I noted that you had liked many of EK's posts, this is fact. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 12:47 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 07:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 03:51 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have no interest in what is perceived to be an ethical or non ethical outcome.

I don't accept there is any ethical culpability.

I don't want the moral police, I don't want a government dishing out vengeance (justice) on immoral people or immoral businesses.

And that is precisely what you are being criticized for.

Businesses must be held accountable for doing harm.
You and the others may feel some sort of moral superiority, may feel you know what is morally right and what is morally wrong, you may dream about what you think businesses ought to do, you may feel disappointment when they don't meet your expectations.

The reality of it is that businesses are out to make profit, when their competitors cut corners then they are forced to do the same just to compete and stay alive. You know this stuff already, but dream of your morality thing and feel disappointed when they don't live up to that.

But anyway, I don't have that dream. I don't think businesses are accountable for "harm" per say.
The government sets the rules, if businesses break the law then they are accountable. To be clear, it is breaking the law that they are accountable for rather than doing harm. If the govt choose to align the law with "doing harm" then that is what the law is. But "doing harm" is very vague, what is even meant by that? If there is no law against an instance of "doing harm", then businesses aren't accountable for that, except in the minds of those people that cling to their own moral beliefs and think they somehow apply to others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 12:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 07:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  And that is precisely what you are being criticized for.

Businesses must be held accountable for doing harm.
You and the others may feel some sort of moral superiority, may feel you know what is morally right and what is morally wrong, you may dream about what you think businesses ought to do, you may feel disappointment when they don't meet your expectations.

The reality of it is that businesses are out to make profit, when their competitors cut corners then they are forced to do the same just to compete and stay alive. You know this stuff already, but dream of your morality thing and feel disappointed when they don't live up to that.

But anyway, I don't have that dream. I don't think businesses are accountable for "harm" per say.
The government sets the rules, if businesses break the law then they are accountable. To be clear, it is breaking the law that they are accountable for rather than doing harm. If the govt choose to align the law with "doing harm" then that is what the law is. But "doing harm" is very vague, what is even meant by that? If there is no law against an instance of "doing harm", then businesses aren't accountable for that, except in the minds of those people that cling to their own moral beliefs and think they somehow apply to others.

So if government decides to make the business gravy train a little more about sharing, for example by taxing them more heavily, the only possible concern is that businessmen will cry and take their toys somewhere else?

Since there are no *morals* I submit that it's perfectly *fair* for them to do this. In fact if government rules that all rich people are to have their property confiscated until they're on the same level as poor people, it's *fine* isn't it? Since there's no *morals*.

You clearly seem to think your values are better than those I espouse, otherwise why argue? So if your morals/values can be better than mine, mine can be better than yours too.

How shall we judge who's is better? By benefit to society as a whole? Let's reach a coherent definition of what constitutes a good measure of how well a society is doing then? Assuming that you agree to this values test, I suggest that a society that is doing well has a low crime rate and a large proportion of affluent population, respects human rights (another imaginary construct like morals) and so forth.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
10-10-2016, 01:32 PM
RE: Do or Die
I think that some businesses—huge ones—should be held accountable for personal harm to the individual. Two that come to mind are the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry.

Alcohol caused 5,554 deaths and 157,132 hospitalisations in 2010, with chronic disease and injury now causing 15 deaths and 430 hospitalisations each day in Australia. Tobacco smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Australia, and claims the lives of 15,500 Australians every year.

Each of these industries has massive, direct political influence—to the extent of litigation against the government's legislation regulating them, and large bribes financial donations to political parties.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: