Forums > Social Discussion > The ethics of working for "the system"
Login/Join to ParticipateStargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Pardon me, it seems as if this opening post (and the headline) can be misleading for some - thus find the update here:
Semantics:
"System" (from Latin "systēma", in turn from Greek σύστημα "systēma") is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole.
"The System" usually can be referred to, when talking about the government or its institutions (closer or wider in definition) - or (for that matter) when working for corporations - or when working in positions that in/directly interact with the government or large industries.
...
"Ethics" (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality (..) how moral values should be determined, how a moral outcome can be achieved in specific situations, how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is, and what moral values people actually abide by."
The above was shortly taken from Wikipedia - shortly as not to confuse you with too much science
***
Now my question: imagine yourself in (desperate) need of ca$h.
How far would you go to get it?
How much tolerance would you have for other people (doing things YOU don't necessarily approve of) in order to get it?
I would like to learn about people and their (moral) standards... and I would like to know what is beyond.
Would you sell your self? For how much?
Would you accept that other people are just going to do THAT - and not whine about it?
Where is the line? For you - and what line are you drawing for others?
Enlighten me - please.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1250876536)
EDIT_REASON: narrowing confusion about the topic
Pardon me, it seems as if this opening post (and the headline) can be misleading for some - thus find the update here:
Semantics:
"System" (from Latin "systēma", in turn from Greek σύστημα "systēma") is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole.
"The System" usually can be referred to, when talking about the government or its institutions (closer or wider in definition) - or (for that matter) when working for corporations - or when working in positions that in/directly interact with the government or large industries.
...
"Ethics" (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality (..) how moral values should be determined, how a moral outcome can be achieved in specific situations, how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is, and what moral values people actually abide by."
The above was shortly taken from Wikipedia - shortly as not to confuse you with too much science
***
Now my question: imagine yourself in (desperate) need of ca$h.
How far would you go to get it?
How much tolerance would you have for other people (doing things YOU don't necessarily approve of) in order to get it?
I would like to learn about people and their (moral) standards... and I would like to know what is beyond.
Would you sell your self? For how much?
Would you accept that other people are just going to do THAT - and not whine about it?
Where is the line? For you - and what line are you drawing for others?
Enlighten me - please.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1250876536)
EDIT_REASON: narrowing confusion about the topic
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
aww, now that's giving it a little tipsy connotation and actually is quite sweet
Totalitarianism is not point of this thread. Sorry to say that even Australia had a "totalitarian" history (Aboriginals, genocide and stolen generation).
"The system" as I understand is "the societies network", invented "to make things run". It starts out quite simple: You! - water! You! - food! You! - housing! YOU! - stay on guard! ... but as society gets bigger and more advanced, so does "the system".
Hard, not to be a part of it.
How do we start compromising on our own ideals, moving closer to "the system" as in "working for (government or private) institutions" and doing something that we couldn't imagine doing just a few years (or even hours) prior.
Yes - without any prejudice or judgment on individuals - working as a prostitute, or telephone-sex worker would mean to me "working for the system"... same being in law enforcement, social service or the military. Or being a criminal... or violently protesting against the sytem would end me in the same file...
Thanks for participating
and giving me an 
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1250696664)
EDIT_REASON: clarity
aww, now that's giving it a little tipsy connotation and actually is quite sweet Totalitarianism is not point of this thread. Sorry to say that even Australia had a "totalitarian" history (Aboriginals, genocide and stolen generation).
"The system" as I understand is "the societies network", invented "to make things run". It starts out quite simple: You! - water! You! - food! You! - housing! YOU! - stay on guard! ... but as society gets bigger and more advanced, so does "the system".
Hard, not to be a part of it.
How do we start compromising on our own ideals, moving closer to "the system" as in "working for (government or private) institutions" and doing something that we couldn't imagine doing just a few years (or even hours) prior.
Yes - without any prejudice or judgment on individuals - working as a prostitute, or telephone-sex worker would mean to me "working for the system"... same being in law enforcement, social service or the military. Or being a criminal... or violently protesting against the sytem would end me in the same file...
Thanks for participating
and giving me an EDITED_BY: FireTom (1250696664)
EDIT_REASON: clarity
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
I spent too long posting oops
I spent too long posting oops
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
The reference to totalitarianism came from you. "Oops and now I happen to have friends who get oppressed - or I am part of a(n ethnic) minority myself. Now am I to leave the place of my birth?"
This is something you followed up with references to Nazi Germany. Later I stated that if I were living in a totalitarian society then I would not work for the system unless I could find some reasonable and effective way to slow the mechanism from the inside.
This was your response.
Originally Posted By: FireTomSorry, by living in this country you inevitably WILL be working FOR the system, no matter whether you take a job in the government or not, because (as has been said) at least you will have to pay taxes wink this is why it is called "a system", because it contains numerous different departments, which form it.
I stated that I would support the cogs in the system I agree with by lending them my power to turn such cogs rather than "stickin it to the man" which would be to slow the cogs you disagree with... with this in mind your only suggestion could be that I am currently living in a totalitarian society.
Originally Posted By: FireTom"The system" as I understand is "the societies network", invented "to make things run". It starts out quite simple: You! - water! You! - food! You! - housing! YOU! - stay on guard! ... but as society gets bigger and more advanced, so does "the system".
Hard, not to be a part of it.
If we take that to be true... how do we take an alternative to be true? "working as a prostitute, or telephone-sex worker would mean to me "working for the system"... same being in law enforcement, social service or the military. Or being a criminal... or violently protesting against the sytem would end me in the same file..."
The only way to reconcile these two statements is to notice that it is "the system" and not "the only system. It is one of very few in human society but many animals are integrated into our system as well as many that are not part of our system(though may still be exploited by our system they do in fact exist outside captivity)
Shifting countries will land you far enough away from the cogs of one system that they will not largely negatively influence you.
There are multiple systems... how about with think of them as ecosystems rather can cogs? Each has different roles to fill the niches in each system. (Sidenote: You could apply our social interaction as a form of food chain since it does involve the aquisition of food)
Many ecosystems may intermingle and have a lot of crossover... others yet will have very little crossover, we can see by examinationing the diversity of the plant and animal species that live there. Each animal can be referred to on an individual scale as with when we teach to younger kids but usually referred to involving populations, apply the same to our society and we're getting different cogs. An animal interacts with other animals in certain ways and we could lend our support either lions or lambs (Or alternatively if we don't want to support the ecosystem then we could very well support a potentially simpler ecosystem)
As such my original points still stand.
A)There are multiple systems, not just one.
B) Stating that there is only one system is an over simplification.
C) If we take the above to be true then quoting the system will disclude yourself from supporting any part of the entire ecosystem.
D)Not supporting 'the system' is impossible without leaving it to support a different system.
The reference to totalitarianism came from you. "Oops and now I happen to have friends who get oppressed - or I am part of a(n ethnic) minority myself. Now am I to leave the place of my birth?"
This is something you followed up with references to Nazi Germany. Later I stated that if I were living in a totalitarian society then I would not work for the system unless I could find some reasonable and effective way to slow the mechanism from the inside.
This was your response.
Originally Posted By: FireTomSorry, by living in this country you inevitably WILL be working FOR the system, no matter whether you take a job in the government or not, because (as has been said) at least you will have to pay taxes wink this is why it is called "a system", because it contains numerous different departments, which form it.
I stated that I would support the cogs in the system I agree with by lending them my power to turn such cogs rather than "stickin it to the man" which would be to slow the cogs you disagree with... with this in mind your only suggestion could be that I am currently living in a totalitarian society.
Originally Posted By: FireTom"The system" as I understand is "the societies network", invented "to make things run". It starts out quite simple: You! - water! You! - food! You! - housing! YOU! - stay on guard! ... but as society gets bigger and more advanced, so does "the system".
Hard, not to be a part of it.
If we take that to be true... how do we take an alternative to be true? "working as a prostitute, or telephone-sex worker would mean to me "working for the system"... same being in law enforcement, social service or the military. Or being a criminal... or violently protesting against the sytem would end me in the same file..."
The only way to reconcile these two statements is to notice that it is "the system" and not "the only system. It is one of very few in human society but many animals are integrated into our system as well as many that are not part of our system(though may still be exploited by our system they do in fact exist outside captivity)
Shifting countries will land you far enough away from the cogs of one system that they will not largely negatively influence you.
There are multiple systems... how about with think of them as ecosystems rather can cogs? Each has different roles to fill the niches in each system. (Sidenote: You could apply our social interaction as a form of food chain since it does involve the aquisition of food)
Many ecosystems may intermingle and have a lot of crossover... others yet will have very little crossover, we can see by examinationing the diversity of the plant and animal species that live there. Each animal can be referred to on an individual scale as with when we teach to younger kids but usually referred to involving populations, apply the same to our society and we're getting different cogs. An animal interacts with other animals in certain ways and we could lend our support either lions or lambs (Or alternatively if we don't want to support the ecosystem then we could very well support a potentially simpler ecosystem)
As such my original points still stand.
A)There are multiple systems, not just one.
B) Stating that there is only one system is an over simplification.
C) If we take the above to be true then quoting the system will disclude yourself from supporting any part of the entire ecosystem.
D)Not supporting 'the system' is impossible without leaving it to support a different system.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
errm, though I do know what I've posted and why I posted it: why are you repeatedly dragging me into fruitless debates about semantics? If you have troubles getting my point, please ask me a question. And as a disclaimer: I'm not aiming to "win" anything in here or to "prove" that "my views are right" - I merely wish to exchange with ppl about what they feel/ think to understand more... Thanks for that but some of your posts exceed my "readworthyness"... like the one above. Could you pls keep it more... simple? 
So... (rry)
Whilst being coined democracies, ethnic minorities have also gotten violently oppressed in Australia and America. Other countries had and still have problems (with minorities), some of them being more on the totalitarian side (like Indonesia) others being more on the democratic side (like Brazil or Peru).
My comment was exclusively directed at those who say: "if you don't like it [sic: the system], get out!" -> which is a totalitarian or even faschist attitude and often exactly what some governments intend with their policies.
I wanted to express my support for people who are still working for or even inside the system, in order to have their fair share in "slowing down" or "beating the system from within"; in order to make a stand for humanity in an increasingly de-humane system. Thus I used examples (from Nazi Germany, because more people will get it).
You don't have to live in a totalitarian system to witness inhumanity. Work (i.e.) in a retirement home and you will have many moments of that - I did. Keeping a positive attitude, staying sharp in my mind, questioning the system and validating its policies against my personal ideals are important - IMHO. Because in a stressful and emotional environment one is all too prone to "shut the blinds".
I have never heard of "the cogs" and repeatedly referring to them is like talking about "the Blue Meanies".
A) yes, there are multiple sub-systems (within a system)
B) no, because these sub-systems usually directly interact and support (*)
C) "the animal kingdom" is none of my concern. But I don't "own" this thread, so maybe somebody else can and will discuss this.
D) valid, whilst "a different system" often is the same soap only in a different tub. (thus directly liked with A)
(*)For example: working in the sex industry (a sub-system) will mostly appeal to the grosser levels (like "desire"). Depending on how much I enjoy this job, I will either increase satisfaction or the frustration of my clients/ producers. Both will increase demand and thus tie the individual only tighter to the wheel of "desire -> satisfaction/ frustration -> more desire"
Working for law enforcement without ... well, let's call it "love" ... will result in treating everybody in an inhumane way (domination/ authority by position, not by wisdom) - thus creating an even stronger opposition against law enforcement in general.
Working for the military - again without "love" - will result in atrocities and thus generate hatred and breed partisans (look at the never-ending story in Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq)
The closer one works with (or for) the system the more awareness one needs to generate for ones own and other ppls actions.
disclaimer (2): I don't chisel any of the above in stone. I don't suffer from the delusion that I know it all. I merely state what is coming up. Please process with a dash of humor and a teaspoon of
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1250750111)
EDIT_REASON: disclaimer (2)
errm, though I do know what I've posted and why I posted it: why are you repeatedly dragging me into fruitless debates about semantics? If you have troubles getting my point, please ask me a question.
And as a disclaimer: I'm not aiming to "win" anything in here or to "prove" that "my views are right" - I merely wish to exchange with ppl about what they feel/ think to understand more... Thanks for that but some of your posts exceed my "readworthyness"... like the one above. Could you pls keep it more... simple? So... (rry)
Whilst being coined democracies, ethnic minorities have also gotten violently oppressed in Australia and America. Other countries had and still have problems (with minorities), some of them being more on the totalitarian side (like Indonesia) others being more on the democratic side (like Brazil or Peru).
My comment was exclusively directed at those who say: "if you don't like it [sic: the system], get out!" -> which is a totalitarian or even faschist attitude and often exactly what some governments intend with their policies.
I wanted to express my support for people who are still working for or even inside the system, in order to have their fair share in "slowing down" or "beating the system from within"; in order to make a stand for humanity in an increasingly de-humane system. Thus I used examples (from Nazi Germany, because more people will get it).
You don't have to live in a totalitarian system to witness inhumanity. Work (i.e.) in a retirement home and you will have many moments of that - I did. Keeping a positive attitude, staying sharp in my mind, questioning the system and validating its policies against my personal ideals are important - IMHO. Because in a stressful and emotional environment one is all too prone to "shut the blinds".
I have never heard of "the cogs" and repeatedly referring to them is like talking about "the Blue Meanies".
A) yes, there are multiple sub-systems (within a system)
B) no, because these sub-systems usually directly interact and support (*)
C) "the animal kingdom" is none of my concern. But I don't "own" this thread, so maybe somebody else can and will discuss this.
D) valid, whilst "a different system" often is the same soap only in a different tub. (thus directly liked with A)
(*)For example: working in the sex industry (a sub-system) will mostly appeal to the grosser levels (like "desire"). Depending on how much I enjoy this job, I will either increase satisfaction or the frustration of my clients/ producers. Both will increase demand and thus tie the individual only tighter to the wheel of "desire -> satisfaction/ frustration -> more desire"
Working for law enforcement without ... well, let's call it "love" ... will result in treating everybody in an inhumane way (domination/ authority by position, not by wisdom) - thus creating an even stronger opposition against law enforcement in general.
Working for the military - again without "love" - will result in atrocities and thus generate hatred and breed partisans (look at the never-ending story in Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq)
The closer one works with (or for) the system the more awareness one needs to generate for ones own and other ppls actions.
disclaimer (2): I don't chisel any of the above in stone. I don't suffer from the delusion that I know it all. I merely state what is coming up. Please process with a dash of humor and a teaspoon of
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1250750111)
EDIT_REASON: disclaimer (2)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
a good example of working "for the system" would be working as a lawyer (for Chevron)... working as a judge or attorney... working for an oil company or any mining company that is enjoying protection by laws from treating the environment sustainably...
People working in the offices of Chevron (for example) are not killing anyone. They are not living in a totalitarian system, they can get out, they can raise their voices... yet they choose to work (for these company) as to feed their children and to have a roof over their heads...
I feel there is nothing wrong if you "have to work for Enron"... only if you need to adjust your inner belief system to their policies, if you need to close your eyes or if you have to treat other human beings disgraceful...
It doesn't start with them but much more early...
In the above picture, you see 7 persons - each and everyone has their purpose and function in the drama...
a good example of working "for the system" would be working as a lawyer (for Chevron)... working as a judge or attorney... working for an oil company or any mining company that is enjoying protection by laws from treating the environment sustainably...
People working in the offices of Chevron (for example) are not killing anyone. They are not living in a totalitarian system, they can get out, they can raise their voices... yet they choose to work (for these company) as to feed their children and to have a roof over their heads...
I feel there is nothing wrong if you "have to work for Enron"... only if you need to adjust your inner belief system to their policies, if you need to close your eyes or if you have to treat other human beings disgraceful...
It doesn't start with them but much more early...
In the above picture, you see 7 persons - each and everyone has their purpose and function in the drama...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
The focus of my posts has been to point out that your question is incomplete. What is . . . "The System" As stated having only this terminology was incomplete.
I made the cogs up on the spot as an analogy to help give a way of discussing the question you put forward in more specific terms.
In the case of the video linked above how do you distinguish whether or not you are in that system?
Theres a worldwide system in the economy as well government on a national and local level. Am I supporting the oil company by driving a car?
You just need to specify which 'sub system' you're referring to. The System with no further information could easily mean absolutely every being on the face of the planet. We all interact with one another directly or indirectly so you could say we were all part of the one system. This kind of broad, sweeping terminology will result in misrepresentation of your message. Now we have "Subsystems" to dodge that sort of problem.
The focus of my posts has been to point out that your question is incomplete. What is . . . "The System" As stated having only this terminology was incomplete.
I made the cogs up on the spot as an analogy to help give a way of discussing the question you put forward in more specific terms.
In the case of the video linked above how do you distinguish whether or not you are in that system?
Theres a worldwide system in the economy as well government on a national and local level. Am I supporting the oil company by driving a car?
You just need to specify which 'sub system' you're referring to. The System with no further information could easily mean absolutely every being on the face of the planet. We all interact with one another directly or indirectly so you could say we were all part of the one system. This kind of broad, sweeping terminology will result in misrepresentation of your message. Now we have "Subsystems" to dodge that sort of problem.
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Tom those people for those companies also provide, recyclable materials for the world, fair trade products, international aid and food for the starving they do it by providing an unsound environmental product / proess which allows for fuel to be used in the transport of all goods. they also create millions of jobs for others in transport and manufacturing (and aid) allowing them to live a life of work and support for their families. which is why they have laws protecting them, these "evil" oil and petrochemical companies that rape the land and (maybe unfortunately) produce the basis for our entire economy at the moment so you could say working for esso / bp etc is actually one of the most unselfish jobs on the planet as they help billions of people and are a self sustaining industry for the moment who help more people than all the charities combined to live a full life. compared to a group like Oxfam who rely on money from others and tyranically choose to help a small minority from overseas by demanding your money on the street.
they do all this whilst incurring the hate of the environmentallist who unwittingly support them by being consumers (alternate perspective)
MNS You (people) support the oil industry by buying any electronic device, clothes, eating food or using electricty, even riding a bike (which was probably imported or had parts imported from china). if everyone stopped using cars tomorrow there would be the smallest of blips in the oil companies profits, but I'll bet they wouldn't mind too much as cars are only a fration of oil use, trust me shipping (1 container ship = 1000 barrels per hour on a 29 day trip from japan to UK) and military use far outweigh cars (the rest is all those hippies flying to africa to help the unfortunates and Oxfam flying or shipping supplies to them then delivering them on big old trucks. it's impossible not to support the oil industry in some way. it's ironic really it's like vegatarians drinking milk, they support the veal trade because veal is the by-product of the dairy industry. It's almost impossible to lead the "ethical life" short of living off your own plot of land sustainably and never using money or travelling anywhere except by foot or horse, but I agree there is no reason not to try or to support the possibility.
Ethics is all about perspective surely, and hence every choice made has ethic bearings, whether we are aware of them at the time is irrelevant. we could allow all the people from war torn countries in to the UK where they would be safe, until the increase in population was so great it collapsed our economy and the whole country was in no better state than the ones people left, so the act of them being trapped there helps other nations support their own populations, also because of the nature of the UK, the more people here the worse it is for the environment as we import nearly everything we have, so by saving people from war we would be further damaging the environment so which choice is correct, saving the people or the planet? ironically this is a similar choice for people who have more than 2 children, they increase the global population further towards (or passed depending upon your beliefs) the sustainable limit for humans on earth, save the planet and have no kids? would that be right?
I wonder if Ethics would exist as they do now if humans reached the state where every decision made by every individual was biased by what was best for everyone on the planet rather than the self. Not just environmentally etc but by looking at the complete picture.
We live in a global economy now, recessions hit all nations now not just one or 2 "the system" is getting harder to avoid as your actions in 1 country can much more easily now effect someone the other side of the planet for good or ill.
it's all quite sad really, but hey maybe things will get better if we move to mars where we can REALLY set up a totalitarian state by not even letting IN people we don't want. every decision is further reaching than we all think, and it's impossible to view them all to their possible end.
' s to all
Tom those people for those companies also provide, recyclable materials for the world, fair trade products, international aid and food for the starving
they do it by providing an unsound environmental product / proess which allows for fuel to be used in the transport of all goods. they also create millions of jobs for others in transport and manufacturing (and aid) allowing them to live a life of work and support for their families. which is why they have laws protecting them, these "evil" oil and petrochemical companies that rape the land and (maybe unfortunately) produce the basis for our entire economy at the moment so you could say working for esso / bp etc is actually one of the most unselfish jobs on the planet as they help billions of people and are a self sustaining industry for the moment who help more people than all the charities combined to live a full life. compared to a group like Oxfam who rely on money from others and tyranically choose to help a small minority from overseas by demanding your money on the street.they do all this whilst incurring the hate of the environmentallist who unwittingly support them by being consumers (alternate perspective)
MNS You (people) support the oil industry by buying any electronic device, clothes, eating food or using electricty, even riding a bike (which was probably imported or had parts imported from china). if everyone stopped using cars tomorrow there would be the smallest of blips in the oil companies profits, but I'll bet they wouldn't mind too much as cars are only a fration of oil use, trust me shipping (1 container ship = 1000 barrels per hour on a 29 day trip from japan to UK) and military use far outweigh cars (the rest is all those hippies flying to africa to help the unfortunates and Oxfam flying or shipping supplies to them then delivering them on big old trucks.
it's impossible not to support the oil industry in some way. it's ironic really it's like vegatarians drinking milk, they support the veal trade because veal is the by-product of the dairy industry. It's almost impossible to lead the "ethical life" short of living off your own plot of land sustainably and never using money or travelling anywhere except by foot or horse, but I agree there is no reason not to try or to support the possibility.Ethics is all about perspective surely, and hence every choice made has ethic bearings, whether we are aware of them at the time is irrelevant. we could allow all the people from war torn countries in to the UK where they would be safe, until the increase in population was so great it collapsed our economy and the whole country was in no better state than the ones people left, so the act of them being trapped there helps other nations support their own populations, also because of the nature of the UK, the more people here the worse it is for the environment as we import nearly everything we have, so by saving people from war we would be further damaging the environment so which choice is correct, saving the people or the planet? ironically this is a similar choice for people who have more than 2 children, they increase the global population further towards (or passed depending upon your beliefs) the sustainable limit for humans on earth, save the planet and have no kids? would that be right?
I wonder if Ethics would exist as they do now if humans reached the state where every decision made by every individual was biased by what was best for everyone on the planet rather than the self. Not just environmentally etc but by looking at the complete picture.
We live in a global economy now, recessions hit all nations now not just one or 2 "the system" is getting harder to avoid as your actions in 1 country can much more easily now effect someone the other side of the planet for good or ill.
it's all quite sad really, but hey maybe things will get better if we move to mars
where we can REALLY set up a totalitarian state by not even letting IN people we don't want. every decision is further reaching than we all think, and it's impossible to view them all to their possible end. ' s to all A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
I agree, Mynci... and I have this here link to add.
I agree, Mynci... and I have this here link to add.
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Think Hope may have a little trouble defending his and his buyers property yes he may not be part of the UN but I'll bet he doesn't want to face nato with a single rifle. A good attempt to do well, but I think he's more likely to get done for fraud.
*sigh* sometimes I dislike thinking... but hey there's no way out.
Think Hope may have a little trouble defending his and his buyers property yes
he may not be part of the UN but I'll bet he doesn't want to face nato with a single rifle. A good attempt to do well, but I think he's more likely to get done for fraud. *sigh* sometimes I dislike thinking... but hey there's no way out.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
^^^ my thoughts exactly
Guys - please find the updated OP. I dearly hope that it is giving some clarification on what this is about and clarifies on the semantics of "system" and "ethics".
I'm not ranting about oil company or investment banks employees - I'm asking into:
Do we have an obligation to question our governments and employers policies and relate them to our own set of beliefs?
After our needs are met, do we have an obligation to treat other human beings and the environment sustainably?
Will we (stop to) complain about other people and what they think is right (on their individual scale)?
^^^ my thoughts exactly
Guys - please find the updated OP. I dearly hope that it is giving some clarification on what this is about and clarifies on the semantics of "system" and "ethics".
I'm not ranting about oil company or investment banks employees - I'm asking into:
Do we have an obligation to question our governments and employers policies and relate them to our own set of beliefs?
After our needs are met, do we have an obligation to treat other human beings and the environment sustainably?
Will we (stop to) complain about other people and what they think is right (on their individual scale)?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi there Fire Tom, excellent questions.
Perhaps you could look to the Buddhist ideas of ethical conduct (Sila) for "enlightenment" and inspiration.
Right Livelihood is the fifth of the eight path factors in the Noble Eightfold Path, and belongs to the virtue division of the path. Right livelihood means that practitioners ought not to engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings. It is explained thus:
And what is right livelihood?
There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones (Buddha) having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood.
The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:
1. Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing.
2. Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults.
3. Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter.
4. Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs.
5. Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.
Hi there Fire Tom, excellent questions.
Perhaps you could look to the Buddhist ideas of ethical conduct (Sila) for "enlightenment" and inspiration.
Right Livelihood is the fifth of the eight path factors in the Noble Eightfold Path, and belongs to the virtue division of the path. Right livelihood means that practitioners ought not to engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings. It is explained thus:
And what is right livelihood?
There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones (Buddha) having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood.
The five types of businesses that are harmful to undertake are:
1. Business in weapons: trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing.
2. Business in human beings: slave trading, prostitution, or the buying and selling of children or adults.
3. Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter.
4. Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs.
5. Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
by that notion Stone isnt healthcare business in human beings, and so would be business in poisons?
by that notion Stone isnt healthcare business in human beings, and so would be business in poisons?
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
stranger by the day
924 posts
Location: At the Back of the North Wind
924 posts
Location: At the Back of the North Wind
Posted:
presumably not, because medicines are intended to heal, not harm, and business in people is more "I'll trade you my children for your brother"
presumably not, because medicines are intended to heal, not harm, and business in people is more "I'll trade you my children for your brother"
Just a dancer in the dark
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Hey Stone, thanks for that.
"Right livelihood"... that is kind-a going the way I feel about it.
But even a little more than that I feel the need to revise and question and to reconfirm that my actions towards others are in harmony with my set of beliefs. One can be a cop and either a saint or a
No question one could be a butcher and still a loving dad back home. People generally adapt to various roleplays within a single day and it doesn't have to be a Dr. Jekyll/ Mr. Hyde scenario to create rifts within...
This said, I (for my part) acknowledge that different people live in different realities. If one grew up to be a butchers son, he will not find much wrong with killing animals - thus he might not suffer a conflict. And who am I to judge?
For me it less about drilling for oil - but more about the toxic spillage and willingly taking it into account. People tend to be more careful when consequences lurk and when societies responses go private (like: "hey being part of the dirty dozen is not gonna earn you a medal here")
I mean - I try to be critical (not overly but still), and try not to let myself get blinded by a flashy exterior (or the hip-E uniform for that matter). Neither dreads nor a tiara are making a person holy (to me).
Hey Stone, thanks for that.
"Right livelihood"... that is kind-a going the way I feel about it.
But even a little more than that I feel the need to revise and question and to reconfirm that my actions towards others are in harmony with my set of beliefs. One can be a cop and either a saint or a
No question one could be a butcher and still a loving dad back home. People generally adapt to various roleplays within a single day and it doesn't have to be a Dr. Jekyll/ Mr. Hyde scenario to create rifts within...
This said, I (for my part) acknowledge that different people live in different realities. If one grew up to be a butchers son, he will not find much wrong with killing animals - thus he might not suffer a conflict. And who am I to judge?
For me it less about drilling for oil - but more about the toxic spillage and willingly taking it into account. People tend to be more careful when consequences lurk and when societies responses go private (like: "hey being part of the dirty dozen is not gonna earn you a medal here")
I mean - I try to be critical (not overly but still), and try not to let myself get blinded by a flashy exterior (or the hip-E uniform for that matter). Neither dreads nor a tiara are making a person holy (to me).
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
That list for Bhuddism seem too vague
Business in intoxicants = chocolate, milk, caffeine all contain intoxicants (milk contains morphine based drug to help child bond to mother)
Business in weapons - what about knives? should a cutler feel ethically bound if someone buys a knife then stabs someone? it is designed to kill even thoough not used for that purpose as much anymore.
business in toxins - well there goes all immunisations swine flu for everyone
to follow the bhuddist shceme we couldn't help the malaria outbreaks in africa as we couldn't deal in "toxins" and would let them all die so would therefore fail the tennet by knowiing we could stop a death and doing nothing about it. I would feel that that was wrong. this therefore would make me uncomfortable using the bhuddist moral code as it would mean the deaths of thousands. but the mix of bhudists etc means that there ARE people willing to "deal in toxins" and come up with cures and immunisations to the worlds diseases. although the producers may not create a toxin that kills, someone had to deal in the initial diease further back the trail for them to work on even if it's the person with the disease initially.
I honestly think that an employee should voice concerns regarding their industry if they feel that way inclined, self policing occurs in many industries where they aim to reach limits higher than set by governments. however, entering an industry that competes with your morals, you should allow yourself to bring up the dilema. if you cannot reconcile your beliefs with your industry then you must make a decision based upon the self, no one else can tell you what to do. what is more important to you? your beliefs, or your employment.
killing animals in my view is not wrong if it's for food. the rest of the animal kingdom eats meat. just because we can survive without meat doesn't mean it's the healthiest way to live. in fact everyone says about keeping old and lost cultures. meat is possibly the reason we developed to make them so is thus an even older tradition so should be maintained the process of produciing meat may sometimes be wrong but not the eating IMO. if the whole animal is used and there is no waste then at least it was used responsibly, that's why I have a little more respect for vegans than vegetarians as the option to not eat the flesh but enjoy the spoils seems a little twisted for high ideals.
there are so many views you can't have a solid ethical base ethics is transiant the popular ones wax and wane in popularity. Ideals change, peoples opinions change with circumstance.
to be fair I think a discussion on ethics is very hard as they vary so widely between people. I would not hesitate to harm a person threatening my family, i think the act of defense of the weak a noble ideal. if I used a weapon that came from a person who made them for a living then he would be defending the weak too. weapons are not bad. it's still the people using them and how they are used, they are tools and tools are inanimate so cannot be evil even if their purpose is to kill. you can kill with a screwdriver or a vase a purpose built weapon is no different to either. If a pacificst could shoot a man before they killed an innocent what ideal is higher? the chance to save a life or the dislike of taking one? it's easy to preach pacifism behind a shield of military might.
If everyone was a pacifist the killer would be king
Ethics are situation and personally bound and as such will differ between people and allow no common resultion. work were you feel you CAN work, to do otherwise says more about YOU than the industry you work in.
That list for Bhuddism seem too vague
Business in intoxicants = chocolate, milk, caffeine all contain intoxicants (milk contains morphine based drug to help child bond to mother)
Business in weapons - what about knives? should a cutler feel ethically bound if someone buys a knife then stabs someone? it is designed to kill even thoough not used for that purpose as much anymore.
business in toxins - well there goes all immunisations swine flu for everyone
to follow the bhuddist shceme we couldn't help the malaria outbreaks in africa as we couldn't deal in "toxins" and would let them all die so would therefore fail the tennet by knowiing we could stop a death and doing nothing about it. I would feel that that was wrong. this therefore would make me uncomfortable using the bhuddist moral code as it would mean the deaths of thousands. but the mix of bhudists etc means that there ARE people willing to "deal in toxins" and come up with cures and immunisations to the worlds diseases. although the producers may not create a toxin that kills, someone had to deal in the initial diease further back the trail for them to work on even if it's the person with the disease initially.
I honestly think that an employee should voice concerns regarding their industry if they feel that way inclined, self policing occurs in many industries where they aim to reach limits higher than set by governments. however, entering an industry that competes with your morals, you should allow yourself to bring up the dilema. if you cannot reconcile your beliefs with your industry then you must make a decision based upon the self, no one else can tell you what to do. what is more important to you? your beliefs, or your employment.
killing animals in my view is not wrong if it's for food. the rest of the animal kingdom eats meat. just because we can survive without meat doesn't mean it's the healthiest way to live. in fact everyone says about keeping old and lost cultures. meat is possibly the reason we developed to make them so is thus an even older tradition so should be maintained
the process of produciing meat may sometimes be wrong but not the eating IMO. if the whole animal is used and there is no waste then at least it was used responsibly, that's why I have a little more respect for vegans than vegetarians as the option to not eat the flesh but enjoy the spoils seems a little twisted for high ideals.there are so many views you can't have a solid ethical base ethics is transiant the popular ones wax and wane in popularity. Ideals change, peoples opinions change with circumstance.
to be fair I think a discussion on ethics is very hard as they vary so widely between people. I would not hesitate to harm a person threatening my family, i think the act of defense of the weak a noble ideal. if I used a weapon that came from a person who made them for a living then he would be defending the weak too. weapons are not bad. it's still the people using them and how they are used, they are tools and tools are inanimate so cannot be evil even if their purpose is to kill. you can kill with a screwdriver or a vase a purpose built weapon is no different to either. If a pacificst could shoot a man before they killed an innocent what ideal is higher? the chance to save a life or the dislike of taking one? it's easy to preach pacifism behind a shield of military might.
If everyone was a pacifist the killer would be king
Ethics are situation and personally bound and as such will differ between people and allow no common resultion. work were you feel you CAN work, to do otherwise says more about YOU than the industry you work in.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
GOLD Member
Mission: Ignition
534 posts
Location: Central New Jersey, USA
Mission: Ignition
534 posts
Location: Central New Jersey, USA
Posted:
It about intentions. Buddhism says that your karma is attatched directly to your thoughts as much as it is to your actions. Vaccinations, healthcare and such are ok. The reasons stone went through are designed with the purpose of harming others. As for eating meat, I'm not gunna touch that one, there are so many arguments for both sides. Is the meat industry ethical? Sometimes.
I like to live my life well. Sometimes it doesn't work and I end up doing things that are not so great. I could get a job closer to home, or live on a self sustaining farm, or join a monastary. But I don't, we all don't and we have to be ok with that.
It about intentions. Buddhism says that your karma is attatched directly to your thoughts as much as it is to your actions. Vaccinations, healthcare and such are ok. The reasons stone went through are designed with the purpose of harming others. As for eating meat, I'm not gunna touch that one, there are so many arguments for both sides. Is the meat industry ethical? Sometimes.
I like to live my life well. Sometimes it doesn't work and I end up doing things that are not so great. I could get a job closer to home, or live on a self sustaining farm, or join a monastary. But I don't, we all don't and we have to be ok with that.
Don't mind me, just passing through.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MIf a pacificst could shoot a man before they killed an innocent what ideal is higher? the chance to save a life or the dislike of taking one?
Responding to an immediate threat, may it be in self defense or protecting your family or others who can't defend themselves, is something else than killing someone who might kill someone in the future.
A "pacifist" killing, or using violent force is not a pacifist (anymore). Which is why I'm bit
about some leftists "wanting to kill the rightists"... And there's another hypothetical example of a guy who could save 10 innocent lives by killing one other innocent life... Which one is more precious?
The intent (to protect innocent lives) doesn't necessarily justify the means (to murder), does it?
I'm not touching the carnivore topic either, only to the point of "avoiding unnecessary suffering"... the meat industry s.u.c.k.s. and by knowing that I chose to minimize my meat consumption to a minimum - but I'd not impose that decision on others.
Originally Posted By: MIf a pacificst could shoot a man before they killed an innocent what ideal is higher? the chance to save a life or the dislike of taking one?
Responding to an immediate threat, may it be in self defense or protecting your family or others who can't defend themselves, is something else than killing someone who might kill someone in the future.
A "pacifist" killing, or using violent force is not a pacifist (anymore). Which is why I'm bit
about some leftists "wanting to kill the rightists"... And there's another hypothetical example of a guy who could save 10 innocent lives by killing one other innocent life... Which one is more precious? The intent (to protect innocent lives) doesn't necessarily justify the means (to murder), does it?
I'm not touching the carnivore topic either, only to the point of "avoiding unnecessary suffering"... the meat industry s.u.c.k.s. and by knowing that I chose to minimize my meat consumption to a minimum - but I'd not impose that decision on others.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonThat's an interesting point - sex industry.
Apparently quite a high number of brothel workers in Melbourne are uni students because while they're not with a client they can sit and study.
I had more than one friend who worked as strippers in college. They made lots of money and the SF Bay Area is a great place for them to work. Legal rules are lax, but the club owners tend to treat the girls well and protect them against unruly customers. At least one club is actually owned by the girls.
And I did some fire eating in gay clubs in medical school. No problem with doing that, right?
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonThat's an interesting point - sex industry.
Apparently quite a high number of brothel workers in Melbourne are uni students because while they're not with a client they can sit and study.
I had more than one friend who worked as strippers in college. They made lots of money and the SF Bay Area is a great place for them to work. Legal rules are lax, but the club owners tend to treat the girls well and protect them against unruly customers. At least one club is actually owned by the girls.
And I did some fire eating in gay clubs in medical school. No problem with doing that, right?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MikeAnd I did some fire eating in gay clubs in medical school. No problem with doing that, right?
not for me (at least)
to me this is not about "right" vs. "wrong" and I enjoy seeing myself as quite liberal in my views, Doc. I got no problem with sex workers, strippers or performers in gay clubs I would have one with violent pimps trading humans in the sex industry.
As Mynci already pointed out: when defending against an attacker, the guys who manufactured the weapon contributed to my safety. It's not about the tool but more about the intent behind its (ab)use.
Originally Posted By: MikeAnd I did some fire eating in gay clubs in medical school. No problem with doing that, right?
not for me (at least)
to me this is not about "right" vs. "wrong" and I enjoy seeing myself as quite liberal in my views, Doc. I got no problem with sex workers, strippers or performers in gay clubs
I would have one with violent pimps trading humans in the sex industry.As Mynci already pointed out: when defending against an attacker, the guys who manufactured the weapon contributed to my safety. It's not about the tool but more about the intent behind its (ab)use.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
That's the problem with ethics, they vary between people with enough overlap that we can always find something to argue (discuss) about.
there are always 2 sides to an ethic for and against it makes conformity very tricky.
That's the problem with ethics, they vary between people with enough overlap that we can always find something to argue (discuss) about.
there are always 2 sides to an ethic for and against it makes conformity very tricky.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
GOLD Member
Mission: Ignition
534 posts
Location: Central New Jersey, USA
Mission: Ignition
534 posts
Location: Central New Jersey, USA
Posted:
I think you talked me out if doing some films at one point Doc, lol. Taking off some clothes if you are comfortable with that isnt all that bad. It gets seedy when people are being abused and degraded and don't have a choice in their life. I just talked to someone today who works on a ranch. She herself is a vegan, but recently killed her first cow to get ready to be processed. She raised it and loved it and didn't look back because she killed it humanly. Weird.
ILUVTOFU
I think you talked me out if doing some films at one point Doc, lol. Taking off some clothes if you are comfortable with that isnt all that bad. It gets seedy when people are being abused and degraded and don't have a choice in their life. I just talked to someone today who works on a ranch. She herself is a vegan, but recently killed her first cow to get ready to be processed. She raised it and loved it and didn't look back because she killed it humanly. Weird.
ILUVTOFU
Don't mind me, just passing through.
newbie
39 posts
Location: Brisbane
39 posts
Location: Brisbane
Posted:
ok let me just say that I'm disgusted to see that someone wrote "we need money to live" we lived without it before, you can't eat it, hell you can't even burn it for warmth and if you look at australian money the is covered in subliminal hypnotic imagery, you my friend are a victim of brainwashing. If you don't believe what I said about the australian currency the n take a look at mary briers twenty dollar nits or john flins strangely repetitive background then go on youtube and search virtual lsd or hypno spirals. So i say bah! nuts to your money, I twirl for the love of it not for cash, if I got a job twirling for some company it would only mean my life would be more luxurious and with that probably lazier as well.
ok let me just say that I'm disgusted to see that someone wrote "we need money to live" we lived without it before, you can't eat it, hell you can't even burn it for warmth and if you look at australian money the
is covered in subliminal hypnotic imagery, you my friend are a victim of brainwashing. If you don't believe what I said about the australian currency the n take a look at mary briers twenty dollar nits or john flins strangely repetitive background then go on youtube and search virtual lsd or hypno spirals. So i say bah! nuts to your money, I twirl for the love of it not for cash, if I got a job twirling for some company it would only mean my life would be more luxurious and with that probably lazier as well. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: JayKitty(...)It gets seedy when people are being abused and degraded and don't have a choice in their life. I just talked to someone today who works on a ranch. She herself is a vegan, but recently killed her first cow to get ready to be processed. She raised it and loved it and didn't look back because she killed it humanly. Weird.
ILUVTOFU
Against popular belief most ppl who "take off their clothes" freely choose to do it (at least in the West). I recommend watching "9to5" to get some "insight" into this business.
It is in the very nature (of psychological nature) to adjust ones own belief systems, as to continue living a coherent life. I can observe this every day, every where - not only in politics but normal average life. This adjustment makes one "fit for survival" - as a race and as an individual.
I have worked for multinational companies myself - not because I needed the ca$h but because of the experience itself. And because I didn't know "better".
Thus I have compassion for people who take on jobs that are going against "the(ir own conditioned) good" - I'm only questioning into "how far would you go and let yourself and others down?" and "will you retain some core ideals (like "humanity") or is it all for sale - if only the price is right?"
But foremost it is about: "can you see the system (@ work)?"
Originally Posted By: JayKitty(...)It gets seedy when people are being abused and degraded and don't have a choice in their life. I just talked to someone today who works on a ranch. She herself is a vegan, but recently killed her first cow to get ready to be processed. She raised it and loved it and didn't look back because she killed it humanly. Weird.
ILUVTOFU
Against popular belief most ppl who "take off their clothes" freely choose to do it (at least in the West). I recommend watching "9to5" to get some "insight" into this business.
It is in the very nature (of psychological nature) to adjust ones own belief systems, as to continue living a coherent life. I can observe this every day, every where - not only in politics but normal average life. This adjustment makes one "fit for survival" - as a race and as an individual.
I have worked for multinational companies myself - not because I needed the ca$h but because of the experience itself. And because I didn't know "better".
Thus I have compassion for people who take on jobs that are going against "the(ir own conditioned) good" - I'm only questioning into "how far would you go and let yourself and others down?" and "will you retain some core ideals (like "humanity") or is it all for sale - if only the price is right?"
But foremost it is about: "can you see the system (@ work)?"
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [ethic * working quot system quot] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > The ethics of working for "the system" [53 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com