101 réponses à ce sujet

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 I think their monetary ambitions out weighed their lofty morals of right and wrong.

Judging by the interviews I've seen, I don't think so. The felt morally justified doing what they did because that the could do it proved that they were smarter and more capable than those they did it to, and thus they saw themselves as more deserving. To the victor go the spoils, so to speak.

 I gave you definition of greed, but you don't think so? Yeah, you're right. The monetary gain is minimal when you have the foresight of ruining your company and the lives of thousands. They weren't blinded by either pride or greed.


 If "victor goes the spoils" equals lofty prison sentences and suicide, I guess I need to reevalute my position.

 Maybe it's just me, but I think it's far better to look at a situation and understand it versus to taking a word for word account from an assailants mouth.

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

I gave you definition of greed, but you don't think so?

You gave a definition of greed, one that held it as intrinsically immoral. I pointed out that while that may be a common view, it is not universal thus arguing, that morals are relative. In short, you were begging the quesion.

Yeah, you're right. The monetary gain is minimal when you have the foresight of ruining your company and the lives of thousands. They weren't blinded by either pride or greed.

We are discussing the moral implications, not the judicial repercussions. Law is based on moral consensus, not moral universality.

 If "victor goes the spoils" equals lofty prison sentences and suicide, I guess I need to reevalute my position.

You seem to be confusing motivations with consequences.
Maybe it's just me, but I think it's far better to look at a situation and understand it versus to taking a word for word account from an assailant’s mouth.

If you wish to fully understand a situation, the motivations of all parties are essential.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 août 2010 - 01:05 .

[B3taMaxxx]

What I was trying to explain, and I will admit, poorly, was that any standard of morality was thrown out the window. In essence, they didn't think about the moral implications, because their judgement was clouded by grandiose ideals.



I don't think the implications of their actions had been thought through when they set out on their venture.



Their motivations were not weighed with the consequences. They didn't think what they were doing was wrong, because they were unable to see its outcome.



Probably didn't explain it any better there, but as I said, I think the lofty ideals and motivations of men further side tracks the disscusion.

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

I don't think the implications of their actions had been thought through when they set out on their venture.

The recorded phonecall suggests otherwise. They were clearly aware of the fact that thier actions were hurting others, but they though they were justified in doing so. In an interview, (before the scandal) with and up and coming trader, the inerviewee claimed to be willing to "stomp on a guy's throat" in order to double his profits.

All this tells me that the moral consensus in the company was "Might Makes Right".

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 août 2010 - 01:51 .

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

I don't think the implications of their actions had been thought through when they set out on their venture.

The recorded phonecall suggests otherwise. They were clearly aware of the fact that thier actions were hurting others, but they though they were justified in doing so. In an interview, (before the scandal) with and up and coming trader, the inerviewee claimed to be willing to "stomp on a guy's throat" in order to double his profits.

All this tells me that the moral consensus in the company was "Might Makes Right".

 I think you're taking it out of context a little. It was aggressive jargon commonly (I won't say well placed) used in private, in that business.

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

It was aggressive jargon commonly (I won't say well placed) used in private, in that business.

Jargon is indicative of attitude and a video interview is hardly private.

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

It was aggressive jargon commonly (I won't say well placed) used in private, in that business.

Jargon is indicative of attitude and a video interview is hardly private.

 People don't do dumb stuff when on video/tape? You fail to understand common human characteristics. Start looking at situations from a human perspective, less a cyborgs.

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 15 août 2010 - 02:44 .

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

People don't do dumb stuff when on video/tape? You fail to understand common human characteristics.

And which characteristics, pray tell, are those?

[TheMufflon]

Adriano87 wrote...

I apologize if my thinking disturbs you. BTW my University Education is on History. I know what acts have been done since the beginning ... and my philosophical knowledge comes from my extra time reading.
Human is Neutral when he is born. but our improper Educations, Corrupted Societies and Reckless families raise the children to do Bad Acts.

Bad by what defenition?

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

People don't do dumb stuff when on video/tape? You fail to understand common human characteristics.

And which characteristics, pray tell, are those?

 Testosterone driven conversation. Machismo. What's your occupation? I just ask because some don't have the fortune (fortune may be a misplaced word) of being in an enviroment where knuckle dragging isn't the exception, but the rule. The typical 80s investor attitude was 'take no prisoners', which is being slowly weeded out of the work place these days, but still rears its ugly head.

 Was it a stupid comment to make? Yes, but did it get him the job? I would rather hire a 'go-getter' than a sheep.

 Maybe that's not enough context for you, but it obviously doesn't matter.

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Testosterone driven conversation. Machismo. What's your occupation? I just ask because some don't have the fortune (fortune may be a misplaced word) of being in an enviroment where knuckle dragging isn't the exception, but the rule. The typical 80s investor attitude was 'take no prisoners', which is being slowly weeded out of the work place these days, but still rears its ugly head.

My occupation is in biotechnical engineering, with a focus on biochemistry. Thus it is safe to say that I know quite a bit more about the effects of testosterone than most people. But that is entierly irrelevant to the argument at hand. The fact that a moral code can based of behavior caused by biologically phenomena (which is most behavior) isn't in question.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Great leaders of all kinds have defined morality for us. Regardless of if they "invented" it or not there is a reason for such a concept and moral absolutes. That is the way society works and must work.



No offense Adriano87 but the society you propose would be a nightmare for everybody who does not buy into their "vision." Those philosophers, scientists, and humanitarians speaking of natural law, social justice, and "rationalism" would impose their views on the masses on an unheard of scale. All in some effort to accomplish some terrible social experiment to recreate society.



There must always be some enforcement of morality to some degree, but not by men preaching "natural law" and "rationalism" which would only lead us morally backwards.



It is all about those who have power in my opinion.

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Testosterone driven conversation. Machismo. What's your occupation? I just ask because some don't have the fortune (fortune may be a misplaced word) of being in an enviroment where knuckle dragging isn't the exception, but the rule. The typical 80s investor attitude was 'take no prisoners', which is being slowly weeded out of the work place these days, but still rears its ugly head.

My occupation is in biotechnical engineering, with a focus on biochemistry. Thus it is safe to say that I know quite a bit more about the effects of testosterone than most people. But that is entierly irrelevant to the argument at hand. The fact that a moral code can based of behavior caused by biologically phenomena (which is most behavior) isn't in question.

 No, and this is why I said my explanation didn't matter, because you could carealess about it. You ask a loaded question, but to no end. You asked which characteristic, and I replied Machismo, yet that doesn't count because you're a biotechnical engineer? 

 Of course it's irrelenat to the conversation, but you asked the question. And using the term 'conversation' isn't quite accurate, given the lack there of on your end.

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 15 août 2010 - 07:17 .

[B3taMaxxx]

Oh. and I think I had it pretty well nailed on the occupation end. /insert smiley

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

No, and this why I said my explanation didn't matter, because you could carealess about it. You ask a loaded question, but to no end. You asked which chararistic, and I replied Machismo.

 Of course it's irrelenat to the conversation, but you asked the question. And using the term 'conversation' isn't quite accurate, given the lack there of on your end.

Let's recap: First I Swordfishtrombone claimed that one of the universal fundaments of all morality was the idea of fairness being good. I disagreed with Swordfishtrombone and gave the example of corporate culture in general and the culture at Enron in particular, as a culture that did not value fairness.

 To this you replied with saying they were just greedy (after defining greed as being intrinsically immoral). I pointed out to you that in doing so, you were begging the question. To which you replied that my original example was faulty because I "fail to understand common human characteristics". You then claimed that the characteristic I didn't understand was HPA-response, which I actually am quite familiar with. I then explained that the existence of root biological causes doesn't mean it isn't a moral code.

yet that doesn't count because you're a biotechnical engineer?

Why do I bother writing, when you obviously cannot be bothered to read? I said that I was a biotechnical engineer because you asked, I then explained that (and why) the expertise I have because of it was completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 août 2010 - 07:50 .

[TheMufflon]

Adriano87 wrote...

have the Potential to Lie, Steal, Abuse, Rape, Fraud, being Selfishness and finally losing of conscience. and not to have sense of Justice and Benevolence.

But what makes those things intrinsically and absolutely bad?

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

Why do I bother writing, when you obviously cannot be bothered to read? I said that I was a biotechnical engineer because you asked, I then explained that (and why) the expertise I have because of it was completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

 This is my point though, that you can't be 'bothered', because you negate the fact that you asked a question first, that I answered,  which in turn you didn't care to reply towards. That question was which characteristic would cause a person to be vulgar in the described situation. 

 And I said (several pages ago) the entire subject matter was a derailment of the topic at hand. Subject matter being human sociopaths/Enron.

 You got to come half way with me here if for only the sake of getting this train wreck back on track.

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

Adriano87 wrote...

have the Potential to Lie, Steal, Abuse, Rape, Fraud, being Selfishness and finally losing of conscience. and not to have sense of Justice and Benevolence.

But what makes those things intrinsically and absolutely bad?

 And see, there you go. I agree. All of the described has 'motive'. A reason in which someone has justified to themselves as moral, in a skewed sense.


 But, my original point, is that when you take out the human factor, motivation of, there can still be a basic set of right and wrong, if only to be at a primal level.

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

This is my point though, that you can't be 'bothered'

Again you ignore the obvious: Since I continue to write, clearly I can be bothered to do so.

because you negate the fact that you asked a question first, that I answered, which in turn you didn't care to reply towards.

Or, more precisely, you made vague accusations which I asked you to clarify.

That question was which characteristic would cause a person to be vulgar in the described situation.

No, which characteristic gave rise to the behavior was never actually in question. The question was whether there was a morality.

Subject matter being human sociopaths/Enron.

Ah, that explains it: You have no idea what we're talking about. The subject matter is whether or not there is a universal fundament to morality, that is what the OP was about and that is what I and Swordfishtrombone were discussing. Sociopaths and Enron were merely examples I brought up as arguments to my point, which I is that there is no such universal fundament.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 août 2010 - 08:03 .

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 But, my original point, is that when you take out the human factor, motivation of, there can still be a basic set of right and wrong, if only to be at a primal level.

As defined how, by who, and most importantly why?

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 août 2010 - 08:05 .

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

Or, more precisely, you made vague accusations which I asked you to clarify.

 I made no accusations. I was trying to explain a simple human interaction, that of which you cannot understand.


 I do not care to discuss this subject any further with you. Your arrogance overrides any retort.

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...

Ah, that explains it: You have no idea what we're talking about. The subject matter is whether or not there is a universal fundament to morality, that is what the OP was about and that is what I and Swordfishtrombone were discussing. Sociopaths and Enron were merely examples I brought up as arguments to my point, which I is that there is no such universal fundament.

 Ah, no, that does not explain it, at least in context, as I provided earlier.


 EDIT: Explained page 1: Babies bieng thrown from ledges

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 15 août 2010 - 08:18 .