Wow, that example about sums up the stories I hear about big companies
and lawsuits. They gain more by not dealing honestly if they can
dominate the markets, and have deep pockets to drive the squeaky wheels
into bankruptcy. If they get caught I get the feeling many are probably
extorted into civic duty by doing little humanitarian stuff that makes
the public feel all warm and fuzzy. Truth is the judge probably gave
them a deal, the people going bankrupt got a fraction of lost value and
damages and can't speak out due to a SLAPP suit. What a rosy picture, it
could be an industry standard! ;-)
On 1/31/2013 11:13 AM, archytas wrote:
People like simplistic morality. In the real world it's different -
see the discussion here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dirty-hands/
on dirty hands. I abhor violence and torture - but friends could rely
on me to use both in certain circumstances. Usual discussion here is
stuff like the Allies bombing German civilians was justified at the
beginning of the war (because the Nazis winning was unthinkable) but
not the later bombing at the end of the war when Germany and Japan
were all but defeated (the excuse then being merely saving our
soldiers' lives rather than all civilisation).
There are, in fact, multiple issues, at apparently inconsequential
levels. As fullback at 5ft 9 and 12 stone 8 you face a rampaging 17
stoner 6 ft 4 high as the last line of defence. If you take him high
he will run over you and score - if you take him low you will bring
him down but his momentum will take him to the line and score. An
alternative is to take his head. This will incur and penalty (two
points) and your sending off. There are two minutes left and you are
winning 10 points to 7. Winning pay is £300 and losing pay £35. What
do you do? What might be going through your mind?
Most fullbacks in this position go for the head. The cheating and
risk to the big guy are justified by such as:
1/. You won't play nest week if you don't stop him
2/. You won't be popular with your mates
3/. They would do the same to you and so on.
I never did this. Dad would be in the crowd and his disapproval
outweighed all other considerations. Morality is difficult and we lie
to ourselves about it. We often won't even admit to the bad as in
believing our foreign policies are ethical against all evidence.
On Jan 31, 1:30 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
I like the divine right analogy rigs. I don't favour capitalism for
much the same reason. Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
a past we need to escape. Origin is difficult. Born a Scot I might
revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
farmers eating 'grass porridge'. Capitalism broke up much of
feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
Book accounting and labour exploitation. Much of what actually goes
on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
what we know, facts shared in a common language.
There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
important in moral decision-making I think we have missed a lot
before this. Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
sustaining communities and give up on empire. We need to re-evaluate
our morality against this. I don't see this leading to socialism and
any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
hard labour and so on. The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
police.
I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
than an accounting system. The problem lies in its corruption.
People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
dark. The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
- instead machines play a bigger role in cheating. Capitalism with
fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
competition. In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
the competition. Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
would lose.
The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
scared of change. Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away? Or
that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped? And are such
matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides? Capitalism has run
up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
honoured debt jubilee? Would it not make more sense to give away what
we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
start again with a new focus on sustainability?
The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
not parasitic on such firms and all of us. The bubbles created cause
much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
military edge (and so on). We end up justifying doing bad things for
the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
answers is.
2013/1/31 rigs <[email protected]>
I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
(55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
spell the end of the legal profession.
On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
classrooms from all backgrounds. This is easy enough - as easy as
offering to put you up if you were travelling in the UK. The
difficult bit is in reciprocity - here we might think of the Maussian
concept of the gift and many examples in 'stoneage economics' - what
is expect of a guest in return. One gives freely - a few nights stay
is not given for a return of a few nights stay and so on - yet one
does not generally keep giving to inhospitable guests. One can
discuss racism yet not tolerate racists - but to brand people
concerned their opportunities for homes and work are disappearing in
immigration flows as racist who raise these issues with some hatred on
the people taking them is also wrong (particularly if done by
politically correct idiots whose homes and jobs are not under such
threat). Hospitality is sometimes easy, sometimes very hard work, can
be a treat or pain - but is always already reciprocal in intent even
if no commodity exchange is meant. I prefer to be hospitable to you
rigs than tolerant - tolerance has pratronising aspects - and this is
my general approach to things intellectual. It's easy with you as I
like what I hear. I have lost hospitality to politics. Left to typo
as it hits the meaning better than the word I intended!
People hurt us Andrew. We hurt them. Some is intentional some not.
Gossip is often vicious from the pub to academic cloister.
Transactional analysis isn't a bad place to look at how rigs'
"balanced score card" builds up in personal relationships - Eric
Berne's 'Games People Play' is still. the best book. Only friends can
generally hurt us as we come to expect better from them, value them
and so on. Friendship is easily mimicked and sometimes that small
thing you mention may reveal the charade. Sometimes we take things
too hard and should just let an incident wash away. This can be
particularly hard if you've been collecting brown stamps (been shit
on) in too many recent encounters. I used to go to the pub every
Friday to get rid of my collection - but this habit itself became a
brown stamp. I'm not religious but there's lots in forgiveness and
'there but for the grace of god go I'.
On 29 Jan, 19:11, rigs <[email protected]> wrote:
Please define what you mean by "hospitality"- of the individual, the
group, nations. Thanks. :-)
On Jan 29, 5:22 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
I think the first consideration is hospitality rigs.
On Jan 29, 12:10 am, rigs <[email protected]> wrote:
At least some had good intentions re empires- maybe that should be
noted. And I believe in good intentions, myself- don't you? It's
likely a project for those two columCouldns of thinking and
sorting.
On Jan 28, 6:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
Good question Andrew - though we could wonder why most people
have
rosy views of the US and British empires, pretty much against
the real
history.
On Jan 28, 11:19 am, rigs <[email protected]> wrote:
Try being Pollyanna for a day and see how far you get. Or Dr.
Pangloss
("Candide")
On Jan 28, 5:11 am, andrew vecsey <[email protected]>
wrote:
Why do so many of us remember negative feelings easier than
positive ones.
Pain over pleasure. Bad news over good news. Why does "bad"
overshadow
"good", immorality over morality, despair over hope,
pessimism over
optimism. Why does hate appear to be more powerful than
love? Why is greed
louder than generosity. Why is destruction of war so much
faster than the
building power of peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
lifetime of
trust. Why are lies more influential than truth. It all
seems so one sided.
Why is that?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
