7 ms·

"I was right technically, businesswise, and morally." ... and in third place, morality. And now lost in the distance. I'm not a Christian, but this is worth

"I was right technically, businesswise, and morally." ... and in third place, morality. And now lost in the distance. I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone: "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?"

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone: >"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?" This would only affect people who assume “they” have an immortal component, i.e. a soul.
- novia 6y ago
  You can look at it metaphorically. Whatever that thing is that people are talking about when they say, "have a heart!!", that's the soul. It's supposed to be your innermost self. If your innermost self becomes unethical or immoral as a habit, that's, "losing your soul."
- M277 6y ago
  Even if you don't subscribe to that belief, you still have something to lose -- conscience. Conscience doesn't really die overnight (and this is from my experience of living in a corrupt society), it's a death-by-a-thousand-cuts situation. The beginning is "Come on, everyone is doing it" and you can guess the end.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Conscience doesn't really die overnight Well, some are ruthless and competitive without coscience even as kids, and continue so...
    - M277 6y ago
      Yes, but do they really start out like that, or is it a gradual descent? There's usually a catalyst that starts it in kids. Parents demanding success at all cost / rampant cheating around them (or just being surrounded by ruthless kids) / a very competitive rat race that turns out to be pretty dirty / the parents themselves are without conscience / etc.
    - Thiez 6y ago
      I think children tend to be pretty cruel when given the chance, many of whom grow up to be decent people. While there are certainly bad people out there who were already rotten as children, I don't subscribe to the theory that people are born perfect and then somehow experience moral decay as they grow older.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > Even if you don't subscribe to that belief, you still have something to lose -- conscience. Integrity also works as an asset that can be lost to corruption. And for those that aren't inclined to put much stock in that sort of inner-life intangible, consider reputation as an outward facing stand-in.
moksly 6y ago
There is an old punk saying. The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to.
coldtea 6y ago
>"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? It will profit them, well, the whole world. Duh! (Yeah, I know what the Christian sentiment means. But it requires the belief, if not in soul, in some trancedental good, for people to care about "loss of soul" over "gaining the world". Which, alas, we don't have as much...)
- sojournerc 6y ago
  There's a secular interpretation too. What good is all the money in the world if you don't respect/ recognize yourself after you get it.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Well, there's the even more secural interpretation "who said I don't respect/recognize myself? Those 'morals' are just ideals and don't exist, meanwhile I have the world".
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      That would be a great rationalization for a narcissist to use while wreaking havok on other people's lives with no remorse.
      - AwaAwa 6y ago
        I think that was the point of the 'more' secular interpretation?
    - greenonions 6y ago
      That's not an interpretation, that's just pointing out that people who do not have a strong conception of themselves or have self-imposed limits on their behavior according to their moral system have no reason not to blindly pursue enhancing their material wealth.
      - 6y ago
techbio 6y ago
If you interpret a grammar (in this case, a list of dimensions for evaluating one's choices) in the terms of another grammar (in your interpretation, the ranking order of horse race or other competition) you impose a structure on the conclusion and what logically follows, that is orthogonal or irrelevant to the original statement. There is no reason I see that placing morals last in that list places it below the technical or business dimensions, and assuming good intentions would seem to require that they were ordered that way because morality is in fact the bottom line or last word, rather than tacked on as some also ran, in itself requiring technical and business success to be actualized, while in fact standing as the higher goal. The most charitably I can view your response is that you discount technique and business due to some prevalence of corruption in them but do not likewise discount moralism. What shall it profit a man to lose the whole world? Immorality itself often follows failures to thrive, ie cheating to get an edge in one way or another.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone: >"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?" This would only affect people who assume “they” have an immortal component, i.e. a soul.

novia 6y ago
You can look at it metaphorically. Whatever that thing is that people are talking about when they say, "have a heart!!", that's the soul. It's supposed to be your innermost self. If your innermost self becomes unethical or immoral as a habit, that's, "losing your soul."
M277 6y ago
Even if you don't subscribe to that belief, you still have something to lose -- conscience. Conscience doesn't really die overnight (and this is from my experience of living in a corrupt society), it's a death-by-a-thousand-cuts situation. The beginning is "Come on, everyone is doing it" and you can guess the end.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Conscience doesn't really die overnight Well, some are ruthless and competitive without coscience even as kids, and continue so...
  - M277 6y ago
    Yes, but do they really start out like that, or is it a gradual descent? There's usually a catalyst that starts it in kids. Parents demanding success at all cost / rampant cheating around them (or just being surrounded by ruthless kids) / a very competitive rat race that turns out to be pretty dirty / the parents themselves are without conscience / etc.
  - Thiez 6y ago
    I think children tend to be pretty cruel when given the chance, many of whom grow up to be decent people. While there are certainly bad people out there who were already rotten as children, I don't subscribe to the theory that people are born perfect and then somehow experience moral decay as they grow older.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Even if you don't subscribe to that belief, you still have something to lose -- conscience. Integrity also works as an asset that can be lost to corruption. And for those that aren't inclined to put much stock in that sort of inner-life intangible, consider reputation as an outward facing stand-in.

moksly 6y ago

There is an old punk saying. The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to.

coldtea 6y ago

>"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? It will profit them, well, the whole world. Duh! (Yeah, I know what the Christian sentiment means. But it requires the belief, if not in soul, in some trancedental good, for people to care about "loss of soul" over "gaining the world". Which, alas, we don't have as much...)

sojournerc 6y ago
There's a secular interpretation too. What good is all the money in the world if you don't respect/ recognize yourself after you get it.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Well, there's the even more secural interpretation "who said I don't respect/recognize myself? Those 'morals' are just ideals and don't exist, meanwhile I have the world".
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    That would be a great rationalization for a narcissist to use while wreaking havok on other people's lives with no remorse.
    - AwaAwa 6y ago
      I think that was the point of the 'more' secular interpretation?
  - greenonions 6y ago
    That's not an interpretation, that's just pointing out that people who do not have a strong conception of themselves or have self-imposed limits on their behavior according to their moral system have no reason not to blindly pursue enhancing their material wealth.
    - 6y ago

techbio 6y ago

If you interpret a grammar (in this case, a list of dimensions for evaluating one's choices) in the terms of another grammar (in your interpretation, the ranking order of horse race or other competition) you impose a structure on the conclusion and what logically follows, that is orthogonal or irrelevant to the original statement. There is no reason I see that placing morals last in that list places it below the technical or business dimensions, and assuming good intentions would seem to require that they were ordered that way because morality is in fact the bottom line or last word, rather than tacked on as some also ran, in itself requiring technical and business success to be actualized, while in fact standing as the higher goal. The most charitably I can view your response is that you discount technique and business due to some prevalence of corruption in them but do not likewise discount moralism. What shall it profit a man to lose the whole world? Immorality itself often follows failures to thrive, ie cheating to get an edge in one way or another.