4 ms·

I'll believe it's meaningful when someone shows how it's going to be employed in protection of someone being dismissed for refusing to do something or in favour

I'll believe it's meaningful when someone shows how it's going to be employed in protection of someone being dismissed for refusing to do something or in favour of dismissing someone who has done something against it. I'll believe it's worth something when it actually is so used. Until then it's about as meaningful to me as someone going. "Perhaps you can action multi-cultural ethics to leverage an enhanced-value culture producing more positive client relations... through... synergy?"

krschultz 12y ago
It's the exact opposite of that. Ethics are why I would quit a job rather than do something un-ethical.
- 6d0debc071 12y ago
  I think we may be talking to the same ends and getting our signals crossed. The underlying sentiment of my point is expressed well I feel in this piece: "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever." If you want people to behave virtuously, then you need a system where if they're punished, or accused of something, their virtue is a defence. And where that which is malign to the virtues you're attempting to foster is punished (though as Adams suggests, I would suspect that the balance of this should be more towards the former than the latter.) Else there will be little reason for anyone to do so, it will just be a faster way for their life to be worse. Therefore, if your system has no influence upon the risks and rewards for behaving virtuously or otherwise, I believe it is more a CYA policy than anything else. Like companies that twattle on about their culture and then you ask them "Can you give an example of something you've done in the last year to encourage X?" And you see their gears spin and know they're selling something that doesn't exist.

krschultz 12y ago

It's the exact opposite of that. Ethics are why I would quit a job rather than do something un-ethical.

6d0debc071 12y ago
I think we may be talking to the same ends and getting our signals crossed. The underlying sentiment of my point is expressed well I feel in this piece: "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever." If you want people to behave virtuously, then you need a system where if they're punished, or accused of something, their virtue is a defence. And where that which is malign to the virtues you're attempting to foster is punished (though as Adams suggests, I would suspect that the balance of this should be more towards the former than the latter.) Else there will be little reason for anyone to do so, it will just be a faster way for their life to be worse. Therefore, if your system has no influence upon the risks and rewards for behaving virtuously or otherwise, I believe it is more a CYA policy than anything else. Like companies that twattle on about their culture and then you ask them "Can you give an example of something you've done in the last year to encourage X?" And you see their gears spin and know they're selling something that doesn't exist.