Money is not motivation...

[Duality]

The conclusion that I draw from this is that, taking the coercion and violence of government as a given, people choose to be the bitch of society rather than to go against government. By and large, it's better to be the lowest member of the in-group than any member of the out-group.

I disagree but if you want to use that as an excuse go ahead. the reality is that they are coerced into it which is obvious there are no real legitimate opportunities in the inner city.

[Mowk]

I wonder. If a substitution takes place so utterly and completely as to render the two indistinguishable in common thinking I'd say it is possible for money to be a motive factor.

This notion of value as being somehow the absolute is not in this thinking reasonable given today's commercial manipulation of valuation. What is a value and what that value equates to is manipulated by commercialization quite commonly. One could ask what's the motivation to manipulate valuation if it isn't the profit in it?

[Duality]

I wonder. If a substitution takes place so utterly and completely as to render the two indistinguishable in common thinking I'd say it is possible for money to be a motive factor.

This notion of value as being somehow the absolute is not in this thinking reasonable given today's commercial manipulation of valuation. What is a value and what that value equates to is manipulated by commercialization quite commonly. One could ask what's the motivation to manipulate valuation if it isn't the profit in it?

Absolutely, and excellent post. Greed is the driving factor here, no use in trying to deny that. Just lay it bare out like a raisin in the sun.

[Mowk]

The conclusion that I draw from this is that, taking the coercion and violence of government as a given, people choose to be the bitch of society rather than to go against government. By and large, it's better to be the lowest member of the in-group than any member of the out-group.

This sounds a lot like, but perhaps less elegantly composed:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

I heard a statistic once that is difficult to grasp, that less then 5 percent of the population of the colonies actually participated in any direct way to fighting in the revolution that established these United States as independent from Britain. It is depressing to think if I would have raised a hand in the abolishing of the forms we are discussing to which I have become accustomed. It really sort of drives home the point that the true struggle is a very individual and personal one, not unlike the mythology comparison presented by Joseph Campbell in The Hero With a Thousand Faces.

Sheeple, the masses, the herd and the hoard, are merely a backdrop to those independent doers of great thoughts and great deeds.

What power hath word and thought compared to the deeds of oppression?

[Mowk]

Poor corporate slave: I'm a slave to the system. The Man keeps waving his dollar bills in my face with the promise that I can have it if only I toil and sweat for him, like a carrot dangling from a stick and I'm the horse.

The Man: I'm a slave to the system. The "poor" corporate slave keeps waving his talents and skills in my face with the promise that I can use them to make money if only I hand out my hard earned cash out of my own pocket, like a carrot dangling from a stick and I'm the horse.

The (private, non-corporate) Entrepreneur Who Actually Thinks With His Brain: If I offer this guy money and the resources with which he can profitably use his skills, which he otherwise wouldn't have had, and I also take the burden of monetary risk from him, and in exchange for giving him this opportunity and taking all the monetary risk from the venture, I ask from him some of the profits, we can both benefit from the interaction.

The Employee Who Actually Thinks With His Brain: My boss is offering me a deal, and I can choose to accept it or reject it. There's nothing inherently wrong with someone offering me a deal, even if the deal is a bad one. If I find it a bad deal, I can reject the offer. I am no slave to this person, I have analyzed my options and have found that the deal he's offering me is one that is the most profitable for me given all my options, so I accept.

The notion of risk. Certainly a common enough argument. But it must be looked at in terms of what is at risk. The private non-corporate entrepreneur has many faces. Some of those faces have a boat load of inherited funds backing them up. What sort of risk is a hundred thousand dollars compared to a couple million? Some of those faces have the benefit of investor backing who are actually taking the risk not the entrepreneur, again, what's a hundred thousand compared to a couple million. And some of those faces are common folk who take out a second mortgage on personal property to fund their enterprise. To use the argument of risk without mentioning the many faces and their circumstances in not likely an honest argument.

I don't think it a valid argument to use these sorts of varied risks under the common banner of defending the economic circumstances in play. Now what sort of risk would we see if looking upon the other foot. The risk to the individual employee can likely be summarized overly dramatically by stating life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Lets look further into this notion of risk to the employee by reminding you of the deaths in the mining and oil industries within that last few years by taking that job from unscrupulous employers. The entrepreneur has a few hundred thousand at stake and given the industry the employee has their life at stake. Risk?

"If I offer this guy the money and resources with which he can profitably use his skills..." Technically I believe that the definition of profit, is revenue over and above cost, and is mistakenly applied within the argument when referring to a salary paid as compensation for work performed by an employee, particularly if the compensation offered doesn't meet the obligations of provision a wage earner in a household of a family of four is facing and when the face of the employer is found driving around in 50,000 dollar car, takes 30,000 dollar vacations and lives in a mansion on the waterfront with a yacht and a pool. Somehow I do not think the profits from the work the employees are performing are being equitably distributed even when a more realistic appreciation of the 'risk' involved are assessed. Until the business machine provides a spot free record of zero employee life lost or injured, it has a lot of balls to be talking in terms of risk as justification for the way its profits are distributed.

I worked for an Ad agency when I got out of college, I got paid 3.75 an hour. Got the opportunity to see a bill of services rendered to a client for an ad campaign that I had worked on solely. My time was billed out at 89.00 per hour. I immediately went to the boss and asked for a raise, (he was not aware I had seen the bill) and his response was sorry we just can't afford it right now, then left work to attend a political fund raiser to the tune of a $1,000 a plate. This was no corporation, it was a small entrepreneurial shop of 13 people. To be fair I don't know if all companies are run this way but If I were guessing I'd say it is likely a majority that have survived past start-up.

To include role, "that actually thinks with a brain" in a hypothetical example, is not in this estimation good argumentative form. The offer of employ is coming from thinking with his pocket book and the employee is likely thinking of his family and how is he ever going be able to put two kids through college, pay off the mortgage, pay for health insurance and still have anything left over to take his wife out to dinner on valentines day.

There's nothing inherently wrong with someone offering me a deal, even if the deal is a bad one.

Something about this is just plain fishy smelling, Is there really nothing wrong with offering a bad deal. I guess you can make that as a claim but it seems to fall into the realm of personal opinion to a much greater degree than cold hard fact. Isn't ethics a branch of philosophy too?

[Philosopher8659]

...it is a justification.

We don't drag ourselves out of bed every morning and go to work because we're so eager to get that next pay check. We drag ourselves out of bed every morning because we feel responsible. We're trying to avoid being judged or reprimanded by our bosses or our clients. We're afraid of being castigated as a lazy good-for-nothing by society. Money is not what motivates us.

But it is our justification. When we ask ourselves why we do this - day after day after day - wishing every morning that we could just sleep in for 10 more minutes - what do we tell ourselves? "I'm getting payd!" Thus, after we ask ourselves this question, and answer it, we go on with our day, we go on doing what we push ourselves to do. Money is how we excuse ourselves. It's what we use to silence our complaining and not dwell over the predicaments we find ourselves stuck in.

Actually, I do it so I got something to put into the coffee vending machine, otherwise it is a long wait for it to drop and fill a cup.

[Gobbo]

I wad reading this thread, with the usual look of disapproval I have on my face. Then I came to this part,

First, if it weren't for governments and the economic markets they create, people would need to make their own clothes, grow their own food, build their own houses, or trade their skills for these goods directly. In other words, these are goods that only exist because of the global, coercive, violent government that enables the rich to oppress the poor into making them.

and puked a little bit in my mouth.

[Dan~]

I would also agree that money is not what motivates a person. It's a convenient excuse for a much deeper quest, one for meaning and purpose. It's like a flotation belt that keeps a person above surface while one tries to find oneself in an entirely artificial world through servitude and obedience to just about everyone and everything - except oneself. Pursuing one's own agendas is highly dangerous to the rest, who's agendas are different (they frequently are) and they are willing to do anything to control and inhibit it...

One can have money and still be miserable, this we know. Money is never the goal, and there lies a common misconception - it is only a symbol of value, not the actual value... both economically and philosophically...

Money equates to buying power. It doesn't have some sort of social meaning.
Who ever has the most money gets to own the most resources, usually either more than he needs, or less than he needs.

A fair society would pay everyone enough for work, not too much, not too little.

[Flannel Jesus]

There's nothing inherently wrong with someone offering me a deal, even if the deal is a bad one.

Something about this is just plain fishy smelling, Is there really nothing wrong with offering a bad deal. I guess you can make that as a claim but it seems to fall into the realm of personal opinion to a much greater degree than cold hard fact. Isn't ethics a branch of philosophy too?

I think your mind's a little disoriented here. It's unethical to offer a bad deal? Why? The person you're offering it to can just say no. I don't see why presenting them with an option is a bad thing, even if they don't want that option. Every time you go into a grocery store, there are bad deals all over the place -- things you don't want being sold for more than you'd want to pay for them. There's always going to be things that you don't want to pay for. There are always going to be bad deals. Even in the most ethical world.

To the contrary, making the claim that it's unethical to offer a bad deal falls into the realm of person opinion. "Bad" isn't a cold hard fact. "Bad" is the personal opinion. Your position is the opinion. So, no, I think it's fair to say that I can offer whatever deal I like to whomever I wish, and as long as they have the option to decline the deal, there's nothing unethical. I can offer to buy their car for 1 dollar, and as long as they can say "No, my car's worth more than that to me," there's nothing wrong with my offer.

[Flannel Jesus]

The only way to remove all bad deals would be to take away trade altogether. Ironically, most people prefer trade, so offering them the deal of, "We cab take away all bad deals, but we must also completely dismember society and trade and you have to go back to living in the wild" would be the ultimate bad deal.

You can't have trade without bad deals. There will ALWAYS be bad deals. There will always be one person selling a car for more than another person wants to pay for it, there will always be one person selling food for more than another wants to pay for it, there will always be people who just don't want to pay for what other people are offering. That's not unethical, that's just normal, that's just life. I don't go up to every person whose offering something that I don't want and say "You immoral bastard!" and I doubt you do either. I sincerely doubt that you actually believe bad deals are unethical.

[Dan~]

I think it is unethical if the person has to accept the bad deal.
For example only a hand full of people sell water, but charge very much for it.
That's just an example. Water isn't monopolized.

But if something like water got owned by someone, all of it, then they sold it for too much, that would be a form of exploitation.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think it is unethical if the person has to accept the bad deal.

i agree. hence me saying this:

as long as they have the option to decline the deal

[Mowk]

"I think your mind's a little disoriented here."

You are too generous, this mind is greatly disoriented here.

"It's unethical to offer a bad deal?"

When I read just the above, I get the impression the person extending the deal has made the moral judgment the deal is a bad one. They have made the offer of the deal and the judgment it is a bad one. That does sound unethical to me. The offer hasn't even reached my senses in its entirety for my judgment to come into play regarding its equability or its subjective moral nature. The word "deal" itself has a connotation of being good, as in the expression that was a real deal. If the person extending the offer has reached the moral judgment it is bad, it rather negates it as being a deal.

My confusion, was in regard to where the moral judgment took place. If an offer of employ is extended and I judge it to be lacking in mutually equitable benefit then I would not likely consider it a deal and that perhaps could be defined as a difference in opinion, in which case negotiation could take place to meet more equitably in the middle of our opinions.

In consideration I think I'm perhaps less disoriented then you have assessed. On the grounds alone that everyone does it has little to do with whether it is ethical or not. Perhaps you have pointed out where within our trade practices room for improvement resides.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, there's no amount of improvement that can eliminate bad deals without eliminating trade altogether. Say I'm selling an apple for 50 cents, but it's a bad deal to you because you wouldn't buy an apple for any more than 25 cents. So, one solution -- lower the price to 25 cents. Maybe the costs of obtaining the apple was more than 25 cents, so now, suddenly, it's a bad deal for me. We haven't removed the bad deal, we've just switched who it's bad for.

There will always be people selling things for more than other people want to pay for them. That's not bad, that's not immoral, that's just life. Don't pay for it. Just say no. It's quite easy. Not a moral issue at all. Yes, I think you're quite disoriented.

[Mowk]

"No,"

That sounds relatively certain. Best of luck with that.

Who ever said it was my effort to eliminate, I simply recognized that there was room (opportunity) for improvement that could take place. Sort of like moving half way there in repeated increments will never get you there but does get you closer. In many human endeavors, the closer you are to the target the easier it is to hit it. I believe to mitigate is possible and perhaps to eliminate is not, but I'm going to leave some wiggle room with regard to the 'impossible to eliminate' conclusion as circumstances that make something appear impossible, some times, can be changed.

Carry on.

[Mowk]

"I think your mind's a little disoriented here. It's unethical to offer a bad deal? Why?"

1) Because of what I think is a definition of ethical? Clearly, you think I am mistaken in that belief. So please define ethical in such a way that the behavior would fall within its domain.

2) What if the person doesn't have the capacity to recognize it is a bad deal and you are so warm and trustworthy looking in your presentation the person trusts you mistakenly. Have to told them YOU think it is a bad deal or have you "sugar coated" it to appear as something other then the bad deal YOU have judged it to be? And what of their circumstance? Could there be something unusual about this persons circumstance that you are taking advantage of with your bad deal offer.

3) Because "you" recognize it as a "bad" deal. What part of ethical includes someone else receiving something "bad" at your offer, knowing it is bad? It would be just as unethical of the person to accept your judgement of a bad deal with the knowledge it was a great deal. That happens fairly often too, but just because it happens all the time doesn't make it ethical.

If you had an antique and took it in for valuation and the person you brought it to sensed you had no idea what you held and offered you pennies on the dollar of what it was worth, would that be offering a bad deal? And further let's say that person took the antique, in good faith, to two other dealers who didn't know what it was and they offered a similar fraction of its value, yet you do know, do you think that is ethical?

4) I think it's unethical because the word "bad" came up in the description of the "deal".

And you have the nads to judge the state of my mind? That's some dreadful style.

[Flannel Jesus]

Wow, this thread is a couple years old. Interesting.

Anyway, I don't think you've noticed that we seem to be using the term 'bad deal' differently -- or rather, I think you have noticed, and you just haven't bothered with trying to correct the situation.

My example of a 'bad deal' was somebody selling an apple for 50c, and somebody else thinking it's a bad deal because they're not willing to pay more than 25c for it.

Your example of a 'bad deal' was somebody deliberately and knowingly lying to someone about the value of something they owned so they could get it for pennies on the dollar. Basically ripping someone off because of their ignorance.

I think there's a pretty big difference between the first example and the second one. I have no reason to think there's anything unethical going on in the apple example -- someone is selling something at a certain price, and someone else is unwilling to buy it.

The second one definitely has more questionable ethics. I wouldn't say it's quite as unethical as stealing, but it's pretty darn close.

But, if you think it's unethical to offer an apple for 50c to someone who doesn't want to pay that much for an apple, please, tell me why.

[LaughingMan]

The real absurdity lies within the concept of earning a living. Think about that one for a moment.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

The real absurdity lies within the concept of earning a living. Think about that one for a moment.

Some humor lays in taking colloquialisms to be literal statements. But very little truth lays there.

Earning a living is not a literal statement. If it was changed to, amassing resources so that our bodies may still function and parts of our lives will be easier, would you feel better?

Also for your edification:

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, doesn't only refer to chains.

A leopard cannot change its stripes, is not only about leopards.

And, A picture is worth a thousand words, does not mean that it is an exact number.

[Mowk]

Just answering the question as you asked it.

"My example of a 'bad deal' was somebody selling an apple for 50c, and somebody else thinking it's a bad deal because they're not willing to pay more than 25c for it."

In the example above; the person on the receiving end of the offer has made the judgement that it is bad and says nothing about the one offering it thinking it is bad.

Your question, however, was worded differently. You asked; "It is unethical to offer a bad deal? Why?"

Earlier I wrote: "When I read just the above, I get the impression the person extending the deal has made the moral judgment the deal is a bad one. They have made the offer of the deal and the judgment it is a bad one. That does sound unethical to me. The offer hasn't even reached my senses in its entirety for my judgment to come into play regarding its equability or its subjective moral nature. The word "deal" itself has a connotation of being good, as in the expression that was a real deal. If the person extending the offer has reached the moral judgment it is bad, it rather negates it as being a deal."

And you respond with this?
"Anyway, I don't think you've noticed that we seem to be using the term 'bad deal' differently -- or rather, I think you have noticed, and you just haven't bothered with trying to correct the situation."

So essentially you are no longer asking why offering a bad deal is unethical. You recognize it. Thanks.

[LaughingMan]

The real absurdity lies within the concept of earning a living. Think about that one for a moment.

Some humor lays in taking colloquialisms to be literal statements. But very little truth lays there.

Earning a living is not a literal statement. If it was changed to, amassing resources so that our bodies may still function and parts of our lives will be easier, would you feel better?

Also for your edification:

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, doesn't only refer to chains.

A leopard cannot change its stripes, is not only about leopards.

And, A picture is worth a thousand words, does not mean that it is an exact number.

The concept of earning a living fits well within a fictitious moral metanarrative.

It suggests how people ought to live as and be.

Please extrapolate on that.

[Flannel Jesus]

So essentially you are no longer asking why offering a bad deal is unethical. You recognize it. Thanks.

I recognize that there are instances where offering a bad deal can play a part in unethical behavior.

The statement 'offering a bad deal is unethical' is too broad, too unqualified; if you told that to someone outside of the context of this conversation, they would probably think of an example like the one I thought of -- selling something at a price somebody else doesn't want to pay -- and would not understand what's so unethical about it. There is nothing inherently unethical about offering something at a price that someone else is unwilling to pay for it.

So please try to recognize what I really did agree to, rather than just saying 'Nananana I won.'

[LaughingMan]

Money is the religion and mass ritual of the state whom has become god as the center. We live in a monetary theocracy folks.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

The concept of earning a living fits well within a fictitious moral metanarrative.

It suggests how people ought to live as and be.

Please extrapolate on that.

You are the one that believes it, shouldn't you do it? Stop being lazy and earn your own way.

[LaughingMan]

The concept of earning a living fits well within a fictitious moral metanarrative.

It suggests how people ought to live as and be.

Please extrapolate on that.

You are the one that believes it, shouldn't you do it? Stop being lazy and earn your own way.

Everybody that participates in it is conditioned to still others just go along with all because of coercion.