3 ms·

I'm not interested in debating such a thing. Let's just say (agree?) the labor/services Madoff performed were not the labor/services his investors had hoped for

I'm not interested in debating such a thing. Let's just say (agree?) the labor/services Madoff performed were not the labor/services his investors had hoped for. And since his labor/services were in opposition to agreed upon contracts, he is sitting in jail. I have already provided at least 2 other examples of people immorally earning (per your new definition) money, you have ignored both to focus on semantics involving Madoff. My point remains. Your original post and overall point is invalid. In fact, it is 100% backwards. Money is morally neutral. It's how you get money and what you do with it that determines morality.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
maxharris 16y ago
I'm not interested in debating such a thing. That's because you have no leg to stand on here. Let's just say (agree?) the labor/services Madoff performed were not the labor/services his investors had hoped for I don't agree. Madoff knew he was defrauding his victims. It's not simply a matter of breach of contract because that is something that civil courts handle. How many people do you know that are in jail because they breached a private contract? I have already provided at least 2 other examples of people immorally earning (per your new definition) money, you have ignored both to focus on semantics involving Madoff. I've dispatched with your context-dropping heroin example. You think that this is all a semantic issue, but I don't agree. You can't use the same language to describe heroes and villians without committing a profound injustice against the virtuous (or focusing on nonessential attributes that any two people might share regardless of moral status, which is an epistemological error).