6 ms·

All business is inherently unethical and relies on hiding and externalizing costs of production unto the environment, a vulnerable population, or other forms of

All business is inherently unethical and relies on hiding and externalizing costs of production unto the environment, a vulnerable population, or other forms of legal/tax trickery. Advertising is no more evil than the for-profit healthcare system in the US, or the food industry, or really any other industry, when you really stop to consider it. People who think they are operating or working for an "ethical" business are simply unaware or willfully ignorant of its costs. Typically it is the latter, or as Upton Sinclair beautifully put it — "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

freedomben 3y ago
what's the ethical alternative? everybody must produce everything they want/need without any sort of trading, and without owning any land? or does the government just force people to work and distribute everything anybody needs?
- forward1 3y ago
  Must there be an alternative? What if the world is not ethical by design? What does the evidence say about it?
  - radiator 3y ago
    This is quite deep. And delivered in socratic style, nonetheless.
    - forward1 3y ago
      Yet past the sarcasm, you're not able to offer a compelling counter-argument. I wonder, why is that?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Fair point, but if we're stretching the definition to the point where nothing can be ethical, then there isn't any meaning to the word "ethical" as it relates to a binary "is" or "is not." If we agree that nothing can be fully "ethical," there still should be some continuum on which to place the current system, unless you contend that every system and/or action is ethically equal, which I would further contend erases any meaning of the word rendering the premise moot. So that said, is there any system that is more ethical than the current?
    - forward1 3y ago
      We're not "stretching" anything. I made a simple assertion: business cannot be ethical, but it is inherently exploitative. I asked for examples of businesses where this is not the case. Instead of examples, I got back screetching, whining and whataboutism. People would rather bury their head in the sand and think they're acting virtuously in this world. The cognitive dissonance here is frankly alarming, if it weren't so expected for entitled first-world engineers.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        > I asked for examples of businesses where this is not the case. Instead of examples, I got back screetching, whining and whataboutism. Please, point out where I did any of that sort. And I asked for an example of a system that is more ethical, and got nothing but dodging and bitching. I don't think you have any ground to stand on to demand examples (certainly from me, who if you care to read again I'm not disputing your position that business can't be ethical, so it makes zero sense to ask me for an example). It seems unreasonable to expect of others what you aren't willing to give yourself. Dare I say that's ... unethical? If you want to complain about the real world, then offer solutions that work in the real world. We can then consider and debate them and maybe get somewhere. If you just want to make philosophical contemplations, I'm actually up for that, but not if you aren't going to even bother getting your arguments straight. You just look like a troll in that case. Actually I changed my mind. I am disputing your contention and here is my example. Please point out where the unethical parts are. Person a and person b are stranded on an island in the South Pacific. There are no other humans around. Person A gets pretty good at catching fish, while person b gets pretty good at harvesting coconuts. Individually, person a can catch six fish and harvest two coconuts. Person b can catch one fish and harvest eight coconuts. Person b is concerned about not getting enough protein, so they approach person a and offer to trade two coconuts for one fish. Person a Agrees, and a mutually agreeable business transaction has taken place. Both parties are better off than they were before. What part of this is unethical? By the way, please don't take offense by any of this. You seem to have thick enough skin to trade barbs, and honestly this has been an interesting discussion (minus some unneeded name calling but that's a minor detail between friends like us)
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    Funnily I agree with this. But where you go with it sounds like a stubborn “iam14andthisisdeep”. Language and values should be useful for us to make decisions on. Saying everything is bad and there’s no alternative can be true in a sense but it is not useful, and in most discussions just sounds inane.
    - forward1 3y ago
      Yet the true mental adolescence and gymnastics through this post is the abject failure to furnish even one example of a business which can be considered ethical, instead choosing to believe the false notion we can live, work and shop without consequence.
      - therealdrag0 3y ago
        Maybe you’re missing the point. This is like having a conversation with a nihilist. Yes objectively there is no meaning in the universe. It’s all made up. Now what? We have to move on from that. We live in fictions and narratives that are useful for our success. Just calling everything unethical isn’t useful beyond a dorm room mental exercise.
        forward1 3y ago
        Why does recognizing cruelty and injustice the world have to be "useful"?
        therealdrag0 3y ago
        I don’t think it does! But you shouldn’t be surprised when people are operating under a different framework when engaging with the world. And discussions won’t go anywhere trying to get different conclusions out of different starting points and motives. If everything is unethical then nothing matters, but people don’t want nothing to matter so they construct shades of grey to make choices and judgements on. Your “um actually everything is unethical” is irrelevant to the game they’re playing. Not to mention it’s absurd a conversation this long hasn’t pointed out the relativity of ethical judgments or event attempted to define what ethical even means.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  The ethical alternative is one that balances innovation and entrepreneurship with ecological and social responsibility. You can use resources, invent stuff, and organise people to work on it, but you only get to do it if Reality-Based Accounting rates the project as a net positive for the planet, and you have to share some of the benefits. And if you can't make it happen without being consistently cruel and exploitative to some individuals, groups, or locations, you don't get to do it again. This is not trivial to organise. But it's far more likely to lead to an R&D explosion than the current myopic and manic-depressive comic book version of "the economy" we're all supposed to have irrational faith in.
  - serf 3y ago
    nothing to spur innovation like panning every idea through a global counsel of magicians who know what's best for the planet. aside from global consensus on ideas like 'the planet', it'd require mass labor force control and government assignment, two ideas i'm not thrilled about. I could see it working in a sci-fi novel, but I have a hard time closing the gaps between them and us.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    How is aggressive centralized gating supposed to lead to R&D when history shows freedom leads to innovation and prosperity? You don’t need to have faith in anything. The economy exists and is all around us providing great value.
  - verinus 3y ago
    This is so theoretical it will never work in an acceptable way. Because of who will decide is responsible and on what grounds? What will come of it will most likely be analogous to the Communist system where just a central committee was in charge of making all the decisions. and to be quite clear: this system failed utterly and completely. Without the capitalist west there would have been famines in DDR and the east. On what I agree is, that we need a strong state factoring in stuff like ecological consequences via taxation- so the decision to buy or make stuff is distributed.
htss2013 3y ago
My furnace broke after 15 years. I called a business to fix it. They replaced the dead pump motor and it worked again. The repair guy was paid well and I was happy to pay. What exactly is inherently unethical about this?
- forward1 3y ago
  How about the cost of producing and shipping the new motor pump, and the cost of disposing of the old one? And do you think the individuals who made the motor pump are treated and compensated fairly, or are they likely exploited in third-world dystopia to bring you (but mostly the business) cost savings? And this is saying nothing of the actual use of the furnace and all the energy it requires. And I have yet to see ONE example of a business which does not exploit someone or something, only cognitive dissonance.
  - voisin 3y ago
    So any lack of ethics in the supply chain (which presumably goes back to raw materials) means the entire thing is unethical? I am not sure what definition of ethics this is, but it is so strict as to render everyone and everything unethical, so perhaps not a very useful definition.
    - forward1 3y ago
      If you honestly believe the product is separate from the production and supply chains, you are either woefully misinformed or under the disillusionment of modern capitalist economics.
      - voisin 3y ago
        I didn’t say the product was separate; I merely asked whether you view everything as tainted if its supply chain has any unethical component. Sounds like you do!
        forward1 3y ago
Kon5ole 3y ago
>All business is inherently unethical 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.

freedomben 3y ago

what's the ethical alternative? everybody must produce everything they want/need without any sort of trading, and without owning any land? or does the government just force people to work and distribute everything anybody needs?

forward1 3y ago
Must there be an alternative? What if the world is not ethical by design? What does the evidence say about it?
- radiator 3y ago
  This is quite deep. And delivered in socratic style, nonetheless.
  - forward1 3y ago
    Yet past the sarcasm, you're not able to offer a compelling counter-argument. I wonder, why is that?
- freedomben 3y ago
  Fair point, but if we're stretching the definition to the point where nothing can be ethical, then there isn't any meaning to the word "ethical" as it relates to a binary "is" or "is not." If we agree that nothing can be fully "ethical," there still should be some continuum on which to place the current system, unless you contend that every system and/or action is ethically equal, which I would further contend erases any meaning of the word rendering the premise moot. So that said, is there any system that is more ethical than the current?
  - forward1 3y ago
    We're not "stretching" anything. I made a simple assertion: business cannot be ethical, but it is inherently exploitative. I asked for examples of businesses where this is not the case. Instead of examples, I got back screetching, whining and whataboutism. People would rather bury their head in the sand and think they're acting virtuously in this world. The cognitive dissonance here is frankly alarming, if it weren't so expected for entitled first-world engineers.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      > I asked for examples of businesses where this is not the case. Instead of examples, I got back screetching, whining and whataboutism. Please, point out where I did any of that sort. And I asked for an example of a system that is more ethical, and got nothing but dodging and bitching. I don't think you have any ground to stand on to demand examples (certainly from me, who if you care to read again I'm not disputing your position that business can't be ethical, so it makes zero sense to ask me for an example). It seems unreasonable to expect of others what you aren't willing to give yourself. Dare I say that's ... unethical? If you want to complain about the real world, then offer solutions that work in the real world. We can then consider and debate them and maybe get somewhere. If you just want to make philosophical contemplations, I'm actually up for that, but not if you aren't going to even bother getting your arguments straight. You just look like a troll in that case. Actually I changed my mind. I am disputing your contention and here is my example. Please point out where the unethical parts are. Person a and person b are stranded on an island in the South Pacific. There are no other humans around. Person A gets pretty good at catching fish, while person b gets pretty good at harvesting coconuts. Individually, person a can catch six fish and harvest two coconuts. Person b can catch one fish and harvest eight coconuts. Person b is concerned about not getting enough protein, so they approach person a and offer to trade two coconuts for one fish. Person a Agrees, and a mutually agreeable business transaction has taken place. Both parties are better off than they were before. What part of this is unethical? By the way, please don't take offense by any of this. You seem to have thick enough skin to trade barbs, and honestly this has been an interesting discussion (minus some unneeded name calling but that's a minor detail between friends like us)
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  Funnily I agree with this. But where you go with it sounds like a stubborn “iam14andthisisdeep”. Language and values should be useful for us to make decisions on. Saying everything is bad and there’s no alternative can be true in a sense but it is not useful, and in most discussions just sounds inane.
  - forward1 3y ago
    Yet the true mental adolescence and gymnastics through this post is the abject failure to furnish even one example of a business which can be considered ethical, instead choosing to believe the false notion we can live, work and shop without consequence.
    - therealdrag0 3y ago
      Maybe you’re missing the point. This is like having a conversation with a nihilist. Yes objectively there is no meaning in the universe. It’s all made up. Now what? We have to move on from that. We live in fictions and narratives that are useful for our success. Just calling everything unethical isn’t useful beyond a dorm room mental exercise.
      - forward1 3y ago
        Why does recognizing cruelty and injustice the world have to be "useful"?
        therealdrag0 3y ago
        I don’t think it does! But you shouldn’t be surprised when people are operating under a different framework when engaging with the world. And discussions won’t go anywhere trying to get different conclusions out of different starting points and motives. If everything is unethical then nothing matters, but people don’t want nothing to matter so they construct shades of grey to make choices and judgements on. Your “um actually everything is unethical” is irrelevant to the game they’re playing. Not to mention it’s absurd a conversation this long hasn’t pointed out the relativity of ethical judgments or event attempted to define what ethical even means.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
The ethical alternative is one that balances innovation and entrepreneurship with ecological and social responsibility. You can use resources, invent stuff, and organise people to work on it, but you only get to do it if Reality-Based Accounting rates the project as a net positive for the planet, and you have to share some of the benefits. And if you can't make it happen without being consistently cruel and exploitative to some individuals, groups, or locations, you don't get to do it again. This is not trivial to organise. But it's far more likely to lead to an R&D explosion than the current myopic and manic-depressive comic book version of "the economy" we're all supposed to have irrational faith in.
- serf 3y ago
  nothing to spur innovation like panning every idea through a global counsel of magicians who know what's best for the planet. aside from global consensus on ideas like 'the planet', it'd require mass labor force control and government assignment, two ideas i'm not thrilled about. I could see it working in a sci-fi novel, but I have a hard time closing the gaps between them and us.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  How is aggressive centralized gating supposed to lead to R&D when history shows freedom leads to innovation and prosperity? You don’t need to have faith in anything. The economy exists and is all around us providing great value.
- verinus 3y ago
  This is so theoretical it will never work in an acceptable way. Because of who will decide is responsible and on what grounds? What will come of it will most likely be analogous to the Communist system where just a central committee was in charge of making all the decisions. and to be quite clear: this system failed utterly and completely. Without the capitalist west there would have been famines in DDR and the east. On what I agree is, that we need a strong state factoring in stuff like ecological consequences via taxation- so the decision to buy or make stuff is distributed.

htss2013 3y ago

My furnace broke after 15 years. I called a business to fix it. They replaced the dead pump motor and it worked again. The repair guy was paid well and I was happy to pay. What exactly is inherently unethical about this?

forward1 3y ago
How about the cost of producing and shipping the new motor pump, and the cost of disposing of the old one? And do you think the individuals who made the motor pump are treated and compensated fairly, or are they likely exploited in third-world dystopia to bring you (but mostly the business) cost savings? And this is saying nothing of the actual use of the furnace and all the energy it requires. And I have yet to see ONE example of a business which does not exploit someone or something, only cognitive dissonance.
- voisin 3y ago
  So any lack of ethics in the supply chain (which presumably goes back to raw materials) means the entire thing is unethical? I am not sure what definition of ethics this is, but it is so strict as to render everyone and everything unethical, so perhaps not a very useful definition.
  - forward1 3y ago
    If you honestly believe the product is separate from the production and supply chains, you are either woefully misinformed or under the disillusionment of modern capitalist economics.
    - voisin 3y ago
      I didn’t say the product was separate; I merely asked whether you view everything as tainted if its supply chain has any unethical component. Sounds like you do!
      - forward1 3y ago

Kon5ole 3y ago

>All business is inherently unethical 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.