Lack of Ethics in Corporate America

[Minor Axis]

Expatriate's or third country nationals

Exactly. No matter how you cut it shipping manufacturing over seas is bad for the U.S. economy and bad for our Citizens' standard of living if you have a college degree or not.

 

[Minor Axis]

If people get laid off because their manufacturing job went overseas, then they are more inspired to go to college, get an education, and find a better paying, better conditions job. What's not to like? If we didn't progress like that, we'd all still be stuck plowing fields by hand, in the name of making sure everyone has a "job" (i.e. something to do).

You are assuming there will be tons of great paying jobs for all the college graduates out there. I agree you are better off with a degree, but if hundreds of thousands/millions of jobs have been shipped out of the country, there is absolutely no certainty you will find a great paying job. When you have a strong Middle Class due to favorable economic conditions, there are lots more opportunities to find good paying work. That is not where we are today. I hope it turns around but I have no hope if our corporations are allowed to send the majority of what used to be good paying jobs to countries that pay peanuts per hour.

There was a time when the economy in the U.S. was so good you could find a good job in the local factory with no more than a high school diploma, no longer. Now all that is left are minimal wage jobs. And I guarantee if every eligible person was to decide to go to college, the system would not be able to accommodate all of them. Nothing takes the place of a roaring economy.

 

[KpAtch3s]

Exactly. No matter how you cut it shipping manufacturing over seas is bad for the U.S. economy and bad for our Citizens' standard of living if you have a college degree or not.

Do you know what expats are?

 

[Minor Axis]

Do you know what expats are?

So you are promoting a system that relies on management people leaving the country to rule over transplanted factories to disenfranchise U.S. workers? This country is not made up of 100% management people in the work force and it could not be if it wanted to. Such an economic system would not be viable and of course their would be screams of why should we pay for "those people's" health care, those people with the minimum wage jobs. What exactly do you do for a living anyway?

 

[Valde Bovis]

money is the root of all evil, remember that

I think the actual quote- if Im not mistaken is that 'the LOVE of money is the root of all evil'.

 

[Valde Bovis]

I definitely agree. Some companies are beginning to see the outrage from consumers, and are taking corrective actions, such as sustainability, company-wide moral codes and codes of ethics, etc etc.


Couldn't agree with you more.


So if murdering was legal, would that make it ok in your eyes? An extreme example, I know, but I believe that there are certainly absolute morals to be followed in this world. Most things fall into a gray area, not necessarily right or wrong, depending on the situation.

This kind of brings up an interesting question though...

If you knew you could murder someone to save 1000 other people, would you do it? Would it be ok? What if it was only 100 people? Only 10? Only 1?

When do the ends justify the means? Do the ends ever justify the means?

I think part of the reason we have become such a legalistic society is because of globalization. People look around the world, and if judgements are made too arbitrarily (such as a judgement made in the example above), then people complain. So judgements HAVE to stick to the letter of the law, because just sticking to the spirit of the law doesn't cut it when millions of people can instantly have access to that judgement and make an outcry against it because the judgement doesn't follow, to the letter, the laws that they were based on.

That my friend is the question of questions: I thinks its off topic here in this thread but if ever there was a quote to split a thread this is it.

 

[CoralRose]

Let's do away with all corporations and limit the influence any one company has over an industry. Let's have everyone work for 'small' companies that put out a quality product/service, have enough to take care of their employees and give back to the community where they do business.

I can dream, can't I?

 

[Strauss]

Let's do away with all corporations and limit the influence any one company has over an industry. Let's have everyone work for 'small' companies that put out a quality product/service, have enough to take care of their employees and give back to the community where they do business.

I can dream, can't I?

We have that, they are called third world countries.

 

[SgtSpike]

We have that, they are called third world countries.

Haha, epic.

Truly, without big corporations and enterprise the way we have had it in America thus far, we wouldn't be where we are today. Your basic car would cost $500,000 because there would be no one around to mass produce them, but you'd still be only getting paid $40,000 because you're just a small business worker. And if you look at third world countries without industrialization, that is exactly where they are at. Cars cost 10+ years of wages, because they simply do not have the GDP to support lower costs for products like that.

If that's the sort of world you want to live in, be my guest. But don't turn America into it.

 

[Crackers]

It probably has something to do with a lack of purpose.

Religion is declining. More and more people are becoming atheistic. However, without religion many people lack a sense of purpose in life and feel somewhat aimless and useless. Perhaps they don't value their lives as much. Don't get me wrong, the more atheists the better. Although, as Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out, there's a threat of nihilism (nihilism = belief in nothingness. Which may include the lack of believe in moral values, value in life/existence, or even the belief that nothing exists at all). Not that people can't rise above this and find their own meaning in life, but that is difficult task.

Also, the population is much larger than it was a couple centuries back. One person has much less impact when put into a world of billions of other people; which also makes people feel less important, which leads to devaluation of their own life.

Technology has made life extremely comfortable in western civilization. It's too easy. There's nothing to overcome; no adversity. Which leads to laziness and apathy.

There is much less pressure in modern society for people to rise above the crowd and prove their worth over others. Rather, people are expected to live a quaint, warm, comfortable life and eventually cease to exist. Obviously, people are going to find this unfulfilling.

All this leads to a big pile of "I don't give a shit". I don't think it's wrong for people to feel like this either when society is built for and is ruled by mediocre people with little ambition.

Can't expect people to give a shit about things like ethics if they aren't all that enthusiastic about life either.

This kind of brings up an interesting question though...

If you knew you could murder someone to save 1000 other people, would you do it? Would it be ok? What if it was only 100 people? Only 10? Only 1?

When do the ends justify the means? Do the ends ever justify the means?

Personally, I believe that the ends justify the means if the consequences are overall positive for the person doing the killing.

Kill one idiot to save a 100 respectable people? Fine by me.
Kill one stranger to save a person you care about? Fine by me also.

Say you killed my brother to save your brother. From your standpoint you've done something good. You've saved your brother. From my standpoint you've clearly done something wrong. Then it's up to me as to wether I should take some sort of revenge or let it pass.

 

[SgtSpike]

Personally, I believe that the ends justify the means if the consequences are overall positive for the person doing the killing.

Kill one idiot to save a 100 respectable people? Fine by me.
Kill one stranger to save a person you care about? Fine by me also.

Say you killed my brother to save your brother. From your standpoint you've done something good. You've saved your brother. From my standpoint you've clearly done something wrong. Then it's up to me as to wether I should take some sort of revenge or let it pass.

I always look at it as the benefit to all people, while attempting to disclude myself. So if the benefit to one or more persons in society outweighs the costs to one or more persons in society, myself discluded, it is worth it.

So take something simple, like mowing my neighbor's lawn. The cost to me is time, and a little gas. There isn't really an immediate cost to anyone else (though indirect costs could be calculated, such as the opportunity cost of losing that time while I could be, say, mowing my own lawn, and now my wife has to mow our lawn instead because I don't have the time to do it. Or damage to the environment could be considered, if you believe in global warming, etc). The benefit is the neighbor has more time, and is happy that his neighbor was kind enough to do this for him.

So, I take these things into consideration, and put them on a scale.

Neighbor's time & happiness <> Time & money I could have serviced other people with

I wouldn't include my time or money as a cost directly, because I am to think of others before myself (and I absolutely do not do that enough).

Killing your brother to save my brother would equate in roughly the same global benefit as letting your brother live by letting my brother die, so I could not justify killing your brother. Applying my equation above is a little more difficult when taking into account human lives... actually, a lot more difficult. Makes good table talk discussion though.

"If you could kill one person to save two others, would you do it?"

On one hand, saving two lives is better than saving only one, but on the other hand, who says I am even in an adequate position or have all the necessary information to make such a decision?

Ok, I feel like I am rambling now, so I'm going to stop...

EDIT: BTW, I couldn't agree with you more about these things happening (lack of ethics) because of a lack of purpose in people's lives today. It's very true.

 

[Crackers]

I always look at it as the benefit to all people, while attempting to disclude myself. So if the benefit to one or more persons in society outweighs the costs to one or more persons in society, myself discluded, it is worth it.

I am opposed to this. My view is that life is a matter of improving yourself and satisfying your own needs before the needs of others. If something benefits me more than it harms me then I regard it as good, and vice versa.

If I were to bend all my actions towards the benefit of all people then I would first have to convince myself that all people are worthy of that. I would be deluded if I convinced myself of such a thing.

Selfless acts weaken yourself. Acts of charity leaves you compartively weaker than what you were before. Making yourself weaker is self-destructive. Self-destruction destroys value in life.

Of course there is a grey area in doing things for others. If you take pleasure in aiding someone then such acts aren't entirely selfless and can be beneficial. However, to assert that all people are worthy of such aid is to make everyone your equal or even your superior (after all, why help someone who doesn't deserve it?). To place everyone as your equals or superiors requires a sort of illusion, I think.

The people I make my friends I do so because they are my equals. The people who I require and are neccessary to my survival are my superiors.

 

[SgtSpike]

I am opposed to this. My view is that life is a matter of improving yourself and satisfying your own needs before the needs of others. If something benefits me more than it harms me then I regard it as good, and vice versa.

If I were to bend all my actions towards the benefit of all people then I would first have to convince myself that all people are worthy of that. I would be deluded if I convinced myself of such a thing.

Selfless acts weaken yourself. Acts of charity leaves you compartively weaker than what you were before. Making yourself weaker is self-destructive. Self-destruction destroys value in life.

Of course there is a grey area in doing things for others. If you take pleasure in aiding someone then such acts aren't entirely selfless and can be beneficial. However, to assert that all people are worthy of such aid is to make everyone your equal or even your superior (after all, why help someone who doesn't deserve it?). To place everyone as your equals or superiors requires a sort of illusion, I think.

The people I make my friends I do so because they are my equals. The people who I require and are neccessary to my survival are my superiors.

Guess that's just a difference of opinion then. To me, no one deserves my charity or service. But it's not about me. It's about others, whether they deserve it or not.

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."

If everyone lived by that rule, this world would be a much better place. I'm just trying to do my part.

 

[Minor Axis]

I am opposed to this. My view is that life is a matter of improving yourself and satisfying your own needs before the needs of others. If something benefits me more than it harms me then I regard it as good, and vice versa.

If I were to bend all my actions towards the benefit of all people then I would first have to convince myself that all people are worthy of that. I would be deluded if I convinced myself of such a thing.

Selfless acts weaken yourself. Acts of charity leaves you compartively weaker than what you were before. Making yourself weaker is self-destructive. Self-destruction destroys value in life.

Of course there is a grey area in doing things for others. If you take pleasure in aiding someone then such acts aren't entirely selfless and can be beneficial. However, to assert that all people are worthy of such aid is to make everyone your equal or even your superior (after all, why help someone who doesn't deserve it?). To place everyone as your equals or superiors requires a sort of illusion, I think.

The people I make my friends I do so because they are my equals. The people who I require and are neccessary to my survival are my superiors.

You view selfless acts and charity as a weakness, when they point to moral superiority. Yeah it means nothing if all efforts and focus in your life are about giving yourself an advantage over others and/or enriching yourself. But physical posessions and having it better than others are not the only measure of human beings. You sound pretty selfish.

 

[lumpenstein]

To say to do away with corporate society is naive. We either live in a free enterprise society or we live in a state controlled society. This is not a black and white situation. There are some things corporations have no business controlling and there are some things governments have no business controlling.What's at issue here is not some idealistic adherence to the hard rule of law but also to a sense of moral law. Once we abandon our humanity we have surrendered to either that corporate monster or the socialist tyrant most of us fear.

Yes, corporate America has a lot to answer to as far as morality is concerned but also all those ideological entities such as PETA and EPA and all the other em-eye-see-kay-eye-why em-oh-you-ess-eee organisations that choke the free will, creativity and betterment of our society.