> No fortune is honest or ethical. The concepts are incompatible.
How so?
Scenario: Assume that someone was born intelligent, and chose to sacrifice their time and money to become a surgeon, and then earned a lot of money. They chose to invest that money to generate more money.
It isn't unethical because they didn't break a law. It isn't dishonest because they worked for it.
> If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so
So defrauding millions to accrue QALYs (for whom?) is morally acceptable?
> Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average.
A modicum of spirituality or religion will quickly quash this. So you have to add atheism to the requirement. Or at least non-spirituality or belief in materialism (I'm not a philosopher so may be using that term incorrectly).
Ethics are not a law of nature, it's basically an opinion. Your opinion may be that all business is unethical, but most people disagree.
Most people consider it to be ethical to trade money for goods and services at an agreed price, for example.
Similarly I think most people would agree that hiding the truth from people in order to have them do things they wouldn't do if they knew the truth, is unethical. Tracking people's activity without telling them that you are doing it would be unethical by that standard.
> How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd be saying it's unethical to provide someone with a benefit-cost > 0 which they've agreed to, and I don't see why that should be true.
Because it's inherently degrading and dehumanizing. Ethics is more than just benefit vs cost.
> I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me.
Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average.
If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so.
...there are many ways to make utilitarianism fall apart, but that one's my current favorite.
> > For some people this money could be incredibly important.
> That's exactly the problem.
I thoroughly disagree, and I feel like speaking up about this particular philosophy of consent.
If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically? Whereas if I bought it from someone who didn't really need the $100, I wouldn't be acting unethically?
This sounds not only wrong, but highly counter-productive to me, since the consequence of not entering into this trade, just because the seller really needs the money, is that the seller dies. How does that make any of us better off?
As a society, we should encourage trading with people who really need the money, not label it as unethical. Whether a trade is unethical or not can be determined solely from the trade itself, not how much either (or both of the parties) needs the proceeds from the trade.
Example illustrating the absurdity: imagine two people who both really need the proceeds trading with each other. Ouch! According to your philosophy, they are both acting unethically (when in fact they are doing the only reasonable thing).
So then you do understand why he should be ethical: being an unethical person is a bad thing.
> why should he take it in the absence of laws that force him to or professional/reputational damage to him.
If the only reason that you behave ethically is because you will suffer consequences if you don't, then you are not ethical. I'd hope that such a person would have problems looking themselves in the mirror, but I know better.
> There are things in life more important than money.
Not only this, but I think even in purely self-interested financial terms your ethical approach is superior over the long term.
Over time, truth and honesty offer a compounding positive spiral.
You make better decisions because a) the inputs are free of lies and b) you make them carefully knowing you will own the consequences.
Reputationally you garner trust which makes possibilities available to you (collaboration, quid pro quo, and low-friction litigation-fee business relationships) that are not open to unethical people.
> which have been biased by money. How does anyone consider this ethical?
Money itself is just a tool, it cant be (un)ethical. Best to focus on the human agents and incentives.
> should not be biased by monetary influence.
Influence will exist because it's part of human nature. Take away monetary incentives and you 'll have political influence, religious influence etc. We 've learned that from history.
> Why is it, whenever there's an ethical issue on this forum, inevitably, someone steps up and says, "This isn't a question of ethics."
Because, in this case, it isn't. The article is about a human being, one with free will or some impressive approximation thereof, who received a business proposition.
Another human being is pissed off at the person making the proposition...but the proposition is not his problem. The business he is building and his relationship with his teammate is his problem. The person receiving the proposition may have had some ethics questions to address, like, "What is my responsibility to my teammate and the business we are building?"
The person making the offer was perhaps a bit rude (though his description of the proposition makes it entirely within the bounds of good taste), but not particularly unethical. Nearly every hire you make in the real world is hiring someone away from an existing job. Is it unethical to give someone a better offer? Is it unethical to give someone (who you know to be an employee at IBM or Google or whatever) your business card when you meet them at events and say, "let's have lunch sometime"? Of course not.
Anyway, it's all like a damned soap opera, and the OP made a mistake to post it at all. This isn't college, and nobody cheated on a test.
> Maybe I'm the one in the wrong place. I certainly hope not. I like it here.
A not so subtle way of suggesting that perhaps I'm poisoning the waters with my unethical advice? You'll be fine, as I can't reach through the wires and choke you or anything sinister like that. Unless perhaps you've got a weak heart and respond reflexively to nasty comments like mine, in which case, perhaps a nice hot bath would be more your speed.
> Does it not have the same outcome that greed or excitement is overriding morality?
Yes but many things can override morality. I believe it all comes down to how strong you hold are to your morals. But I see your point and it’s probably the case.
> That's a very pessimistic view that you expect most people to function from a lack of conscience. You're probably not wrong that it's more common in the business world as well where there's more to gain. I used to think that too, still to some degree but I understand that most people's selfishness is give themself a comfortable amount.
I don’t think it’s a lack of conscience but moreso an overide of it. I think depending on the incentive a lot of people would overide their morals. Though maybe not most people. Idk.
How so?
Scenario: Assume that someone was born intelligent, and chose to sacrifice their time and money to become a surgeon, and then earned a lot of money. They chose to invest that money to generate more money.
It isn't unethical because they didn't break a law. It isn't dishonest because they worked for it.
What do you see that I don't see?
reply