It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Alxandro
He who is without sin cast the first stone.
Another pro 99% thread and now I must ask, what is ethical about vandalizing and pooping in public?edit on 29-2-2012 by Alxandro because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by eboyd
Wow! I really blew that one! Man, I'm sorry. I try to be clear, but I failed miserably this time. Please let me try to fix it.
When I wrote about "cost-benefit analysis" I wasn't talking about money. Maybe I should have said "risk-benefit analysis?" Let me use an example from the article, cheating to win a prize. What's the benefit to doing that? Winning the prize, of course. What's the cost or risk, even if you get caught? The rich, might say "There is no cost, I don't care what they say, and I'm not going to go to jail for it, so it's all good."
The benefit stays the same if you're rich or poor, winning the prize. But for some, the cost is greater than the benefit, so they don't do the unethical action. The study seems to be saying that rich people find the cost of doing a bad thing to be lower than poor people find it.
As far as the Judaeo-Christian thing, that's one of the huge sources we have for telling us what's right and wrong. If a person believes that lying puts their immortal soul in jeopardy, they may be less likely to lie than someone who believes there is no punishment for a bad act. Universities are not hotbeds for teaching objective morality, rather it's more "Do what you think is best under the circumstances, follow your own heart, do what you will."
I hope I've clarified myself a little, but thank you for pointing out that I was being fuzzy in the first place.
The guide to what is right and wrong at a societal level, at least in the US, has several sources. There are variable sources which depend on your circumstances of birth and upbringing, such as family income, education, surrounding violence, etc. There are also sources which seem to blanket society with only occasional exceptions, the law, and the generally accepted religiously based moral code, in our case, the Judaeo-Christian.
As far as the Judaeo-Christian thing, that's one of the huge sources we have for telling us what's right and wrong.
Eternal damnation, to those who believe in it, is the ultimate "cost," surpassing even the death sentence. This sanction can be applied to any believer, regardless of wealth or status. It is also a valid threat to anyone with a philosophy of a future, supernatural punishment.
If a person believes that lying puts their immortal soul in jeopardy, they may be less likely to lie than someone who believes there is no punishment for a bad act.
In an effort to advance the idea that education might be the controlling factor in unethical behavior, I suggested that a University education might be a method of replacing the societal norms of objective ethical systems with personal, subjective, ones. With no belief in eternal consequences, one need only consider what man's laws might threaten. That, for many, is a feeble threat indeed.
Universities are not hotbeds for teaching objective morality, rather it's more "Do what you think is best under the circumstances, follow your own heart, do what you will."
Originally posted by ANOK
I've always known this to be the case. To get wealthy in this world you have to be unethical imo. Capitalism is an unethical system leading to more and more self interest, at the expense of the community you live in. Do you want to live in a mansion surrounded by slums?
Originally posted by Skyfloating
The opposite is true. The poorer it gets, the higher the crime rate. The richer it gets, the lower the crime rate.
Socialists wear the world the wrong way around.
Capitalism is a system of accumulation that organizes production and social reproduction to extract surplus value. As it does so, accumulation generates those behaviors registered as crime by the state. This exploratory paper traces the impact of accumulation processes on urban variations in U. S. crime rates following the Second World War.
Seen in light of this information, the media outcries make sense; fear is a great selling point for public support of incarceration. Most social services cut against the logic of capitalism; education, healthcare and social support in deprived areas do not generate profits. These services are crumbling whilst money is spent on prisons and policing. Repressing the working class and profiting from their enforced prison labour is far more efficient in capitalist terms than preventing social problems with better public services.
Originally posted by beezzer
Honestly? This looks like another attempt at class warfare and a further justification to demonize the wealthy.
US workers' real wages (money wages adjusted for the prices workers actually pay) have not risen from their levels in the 1970s. Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data confirm that real wages continued to stagnate through 2009. Across the same 30-year period, the productivity of labor kept rising: the average worker produced ever more output for the average employer to sell. Thus, capitalists' revenues rose relative to workers' wages.
Capitalists used those rising revenues to intensify class war on US workers. First, capitalists weakened their adversaries by lending one portion of their rising revenues back to US workers as high interest "consumer loans."
The profitable use of America depended on development of a working class. But concentration of workers has always cultivated a fear among employers that large numbers of workers might organize and become a counterweight or even a superior force to that of the employers. To frustrate the formation of a unified working class became a prime aim of American (and other) employers. Not only would this head off united worker action at the workplace. It would also deny workers access to political organization based on their economic interests. Weakness on this front would also stave off effective demands for legislation advancing labor's cause.
Originally posted by beezzer
Well, sorry. I'm all about the free-market system. Capitalism is good, in my humble opinion. I hope to make lots of money some day. Hopefully soon!