Business ethics

Ethics,   Prepare for mega post .....   tl dr ;P

I think the great crash of 2008 is a crisis of business ethics and the loss of trust in fiat currency.

I am struggling through ethics and excellence by robert solomon.  It is about the need for greater business ethics and the explosion of e darwin metaphors and justifications for ripping other people off.

http://web.sau.edu/RichardsRandyL/business_ethics_filing_cabinet_ethics_and_excellence_beck_dudley.htm

He argues for aristolean virtue ethics.

...

Aristotle ethics

"Aristotle adds a further point of clarification regarding the precision that we can expect in ethics. Consider:

"[M]atters concerned with conduct and questions of what is good for us have no fixity, any more than matters of health. The general account being of this nature, the account of particular cases is yet more lacking in exactness; for they do not fall under any art or set of precepts, but the agents themselves must in each case consider what is appropriate to the occasion, as happens also in the art of medicine or of navigation." (1104a5-9)

In this passage, Aristotle explicitly rejects the idea that particular cases fall under a set of rules or precepts. Rather, he states that individuals must in each particular case decide what is appropriate. The comparison with medicine is helpful. Medicine aims at health, but matters of health lack fixity just as matters of ethics. Something that may produce health in many cases might produce harm in one particular case; it is up to the doctor to evaluate each particular case and to decide what is appropriate. In medicine and in ethics, there are no universal and exceptionless rules. In ethics, there are no rules such as always tell the truth or never kill a human being. There may be cases in which the best thing to do is to lie or to kill; it is up to the agent in each particular case to determine what course of action is best. Certainly ethics would be simpler if we could all just follow a set of rules; but living well, for Aristotle, is vastly more complicated than simply following a set of rules. Likewise, practising medicine is not just a matter of following rules. Rules cannot cover every possible scenario; rules can come into conflict with each other; further, there is no one set of rules that all people can agree upon. The best that we can do, in ethics and in medicine, is to develop our judgement, experience and character such that we can decide what course of action is best in any given situation."
― John A. Vella | Aristotle: A Guide for the Perplexed

Robert solomon refers to  Liars poker by the author  micheal lewis who has also written "the big short"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar's_Poker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short

Ethics

Thx for the trolley problem link Ashlee.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Every time we use spare cash to buy a luxury instead of giving it to charity or working directly to help world starvation and sickness we are in effect letting a starving child die.... Is the fact its not local and outside your door some sort of moral mitigation?

Pete singer ethics intro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVViICWs4dM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

To further the zen of shoes... Reminds me of pete singers parable of the expensive shoes... Would you risk destroying an expensive pair of shoes to rescue a drowning child?

Jim Stiles ‎Steven Fullick, "And it's better to wear shoes than to pave the earth."
I think you mean "...carpet the earth." Pavement still requires shoes.
Bruce B Adam ‎" To the man who wears shoes, the whole world is covered in leather." It cuts both ways.

Dilbert business ethics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WTkltRfphM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Look your emcouraging morons to vote that cant possibly be good

Pt2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds1NnDC18_4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Pt3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7XtDfzQamU&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

http://web.sau.edu/RichardsRandyL/business_ethics_filing_cabinet_ethics_and_excellence_beck_dudley.htm

‎"If arguments were sufficient by themselves to make people decent, the rewards they would command would justifiably have been many and large..." - Aristotle.....    

This is how i feel as i struggle through robert solomons ethics and excellence.
Yes there are many sound arguments for businesses to be ethical, virtuous and heroic.   But it is arguing against a human tide of ignorance, action and greed.   It requires a huge cultural shift.    

Its a bit like arguing with a huge population of sharks to be more moral when there is blood in the water.   They are never going to listen until it is their blood.

I think a more apt analogy is a colony of ants,  each does its own little job contributing to the whole.  How do you argue with an ant to behave ethically?

A Robert Solomon points out The natural Darwinian metaphor itself is a bit of a joke,  the business jungle.

Its a bit like comparing the amorality of a shark to an aircraft carrier and its crew.   The responsibility lies ultimately with the captain of the ship to inspire the behaviour of the crew.    Imagine a captain who was only motivated by personal profit and gain.  Someone who was willing to sacrifice any one of the crew for their own individual profit.

Tale of a slave


Rawls Theory of Justice
Nozick. 
Schumpeter
Locke

John Searle's Construction of Social Reality (iTunes course, 2 books, nice interview covering it in Elucidations podcast)

Bertrand  russel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxRSkM8C8z4&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Critique of utilitarianism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EVNEU8Gg3Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The matrix machine, everyone's happy.

Michael garbuz said,

Saying that something is a right, does not make it a right.

I agree completely,  how about this statement;

Individuals have rights and there are things no group can do to violate them.


Chris Mullen wrote...
Capitalism is maintained by cooperation, by sharing, by empathy and involvement in each others lives. Care givers watch children, tend to the sick, shop for the infirm, etc. In absence of this complex and inter-dependent network, Capitalism, as a system, COULD NOT FUNCTION. Not to mention the use of publicly created and funded infrastructure. that corporations use but refuse to contribute paying for...

Well said.   

As I plod through robert solomons ethics and excellence
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ethics-Excellence-Cooperation-Integrity-Business/dp/0195087119  he mentions at length the use of Darwinian metaphor and game theory in business to justify amoral behaviour.  It's as if there is is an implicit wilful ignorance to externalities and the need for a moral support system in which to do business.  If everyone is lying or playing each other for a muppet, no one wins. Real leadership IMHO is about taking care of the population, not trying to play them for personal gain.

Marxist thought and his writings are not the same as communism, stalinism, Leninism.  Just as capitalism is not the same as Darwinism.   Why the implicit dismissal of important ideas? Marxism that's just rubbish, seems to be implied.     Because something has been taken and abused as an ideology or has a political agenda, does not mean it has no value intellectually.   There is a problem of dogmatism. That goes for anarchists as well as anyone else.


Universal healthcare:
 Have you presented a sceptic w/reasons that are difficult to undercut? Have you shown how this will work? Do you have a theory that justifies your conclusions? 

First I want to know what is a just and fair way to distribute property, goods, service etc. 


And I agree with this statement "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen." In some of my views I take a Kantian position that we can not use another person as means. I reject pure utilitarianism and pure consequentialism. It is immoral to restrict voluntary exchange.


Martin Orwell Milly was paraphrasing Bentham's quote: "That which has no existence cannot be destroyed — that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts. But this rhetorical nonsense ends in the old strain of mischievous nonsense for immediately a list of these pretended natural rights is given, and those are so expressed as to present to view legal rights. And of these rights, whatever they are, there is not, it seems, any one of which any government can, upon any occasion whatever, abrogate the smallest particle." - I think it was originally in Anarchical Fallicy(?) it was about the declaration of rights. I know that Bentham and Mill both favoured happyness over the concept of rights - and it is an often overlooked issue that all the criticisms of 'utility' and 'maximum happiness' may equally apply to 'rights'.

learned helplessness, addiction, poverty and a sense of entitlement whilst giving nothing back.   

There's too much take in this world and not enough give.   

I do think in a moral country there is a duty of care for the poor and unfortunate which unfortunately has been replaced with a culture of greed, apathy, complacency and look the other way.

 What I can't understand is the audacity to look poverty in the face and tell them you don't need our help, you need to help yourselves.

That's as if in the story of the good Samaritan,  someone lectures the beaten up victim, well it's your own fault for not carrying a gun or taking care of yourself, you dont need my help and anyway you dont have medical insurance, help yourself, 

there is also a duty of those receiving treatment to realise the gift they are receiving and not assume it is a right and start complaining and bitching about the quality of service and wait times. 

This raises another issue of treating people especially teachers and nurses with respect, even though the service they provide might be free at point of use it does not mean the services they provide have no or little value.

 This a trap many fall into in the western world. They should be taken and shown how different it is in places without "free" healthcare or education.

 Not many people value what they already have. They tend to treat it as assumed.

 Well of course I get free education, childcare and healthcare and it's not good enough! I deserve better

If we consider needs instead of rights then I think maslows pyramid of needs should be considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Being healthy and trying to stay alive is a basic human need. Without it we die.

Air, shelter (warmth), water, food.  Are some other basic needs in order of survival priority.

Staying alive at any cost to others is another issue,  frankensteins monster, cannibalism, the vampire myth, Marxist blood of the workers metaphor.

Also maybe there is a duty for individuals to take personal responsibility to health issues under their control,   Food and obesity, drink and alcoholism, smoking and recreational drug use.

I drink too much, eat too much, do no exercise, smoke and do drugs, don't have a job but I deserve the best medical care available.   There is flaw in that assumption somewhere.


micheal ...we can take steps to make the state more libertarian.     

Again I agree with your conclusion without liking the use of anarchism to get to it.


Monty python 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The tale of the slave

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxRSkM8C8z4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMST58Ww_ro&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.duke.edu/web/philsociety/taleofslave.html

Films about the crisis

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Margin-Call-DVD-Kevin-Spacey/dp/B009900FTS

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Enron-The-Smartest-Guys-Room/dp/B000GJ0NT8/ref=pd_vtp_d_h__2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Four-Horsemen-DVD-Noam-Chomsky/dp/B007AFCQWS/ref=pd_vtp_d_h__3

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Starsuckers-DVD-Chris-Atkins/dp/B0037Z95YM/ref=pd_vtp_d_h__24


Might is right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxtX_6dsq5I