It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ethics of Capitalism

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 06:04 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

It works the same way in acting and sports talent, but I never see threads complaining about how much actors or sports talents get paid. Or entertainers either for that matter. Jay-Z and Beyonce just put down a payment on a $125million mansion. Do they make too much for their music? No. People only complain about business.

They are not above reproach and the same scenario applies. Security, maintenance, ground crews, stage hands and on and on are hardly compensated in a remotely fair ratio. Businesses, being a very broad term, is not the complaint. I'm sure it is common knowledge to know that without commerce, most peoples lives would come to a grinding halt.

Instead, by holding corporations, governments, large businesses accountable for maintaining a proper salary ratio or something remotely close would be a step in the right direction IMO. As my above post states, I am ignorant to the intricacies of all the "whys" but there is something inherently wrong with CEO's and shareholders making 1000% of their lowest paid worker.

posted on May, 1 2017 @ 05:12 AM

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: namelesss
"Do NOT do to others what you would not have done to you!"
is rooted in unconditional (transcendental) Love/Enlightenment.

According to Eastern philosophical schools of thought. Which are irrelevant if we are discussing Western democratic states, and I believe the author is referring to Western democratic states, probably the US in his/her opening post.

It can be argued that unconditional 'ethics' are Universal, as they 'issue' from 'unconditional' Love!

The 'ethics of capitalism' seems to be an oxymoron. *__-

Only if you can prove they are 100% independent concepts that cannot work in union. If you were to make changes towards economic policies that reflect concern for the rights of the workers as opposed to how much money they can generate for the company in which they work (which is possible, but doesn't happen often), it would be possible.

Ethics would involve not only the rights and interests of the employees, but also those of the 'victim', the 'mark', the wallet on feet! *__-
And that just doesn't happen in a capitalism.
Even if you manage to find a business that operates on Love, it is no longer a capitalistic business.
I still see the oxymoron.

However, what I just described is probably better handled by Work Unions that represent the interests of the employees, if those employees choose to identify with that particular Work Union. The Laws surrounding Work Unions differ from country to country, but most Work Unions are still protected by Law, as long as they too follow the Law they are relying on to protect them and their members — which happens to be the case in most Western democracies.

Laws are for those with no ethics.

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in