More Jerks...

Anonymous writes:

"...what if the owner (greedy money hungry one) truly believes they are providing a valuable service to humanity by providing minimum wage jobs to people who otherwise wouldn't be qualified to do anything else? I'm questioning your assumption that the grocer, butcher, etc. doesn't realize the moral consequences while the owner or rich person always does. Does lack of realization of the consequences of your actions really make the actions more acceptable? Shouldn't everyone be expected to take moral responsibility for their own actions and more importantly figure out what the moral consequences are?"

-and-

"For example, I would suggest that the Iraq war is more of a byproduct of people deciding to drive everywhere they go, living 30 miles away from where they work, and becoming indignant when they have to pay more than $2.00 a gallon for something that causes more death and general damage to our society than most things you can possibly think of. In the same way, the fact that the U.S. loses manufacturing jobs is because people decide they would rather pay less at the retail outlet. I would suggest that politicians are an easy target (o.k. Bush is really easy) but they are only a reflection of the individual choices we all make. We need leaders that lead but only those that give us what we want are elected."

Well, here goes. Assuming that every person believes in their own set of morals, or that moral codes are entirely relative to each person, a lack of the realization of consequences might make actions more acceptable in the sense that certain consequences will seem positive to some and negative to others. With that said, the owner who uses "unethical" means (without getting into the question of what it means to be ethical) might have their own set of moral standards such that they wouldn't consider their actions immoral. My personal moral standard is that people generally shoudn't do to others what they wouldn't want done to themselves. As a result, I naturally assume that "greedy money hungry jerks" might not be too pleased with themselves if they were on the recieving end of their actions and thus refer to them as such.

The CEO of a corporation who is aware that their product contributes to thousands of deaths every year might not consider themselves immoral, yet they have the ability to recognize a general moral consensus within the society/culture that they live. So again, should this person have to change their moral code for the welfare of others? I don't think that the issue is about whether the CEO believes that they are providing a service to their employees, but rather about whether the CEO uses their status to run a business like a money hungry jerk... the somewhat hackneyed Enron case is a good example... here are a few jerks joking about ripping people off.

---"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

---"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

---"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."

Now of course, if there exists some kind universal moral standard then a lack of awareness of consequences wouldn't be anymore acceptable than had the person known. But if there isn't a univeral moral standard, and we're really just a bunch of animals with the ability to reason that create morals for the sake of our species, there is nothing left to talk about. Maybe we just "are" like everything else that lives... just doing what they can to survive. Certain people react to certain "negative" actions and deem them immoral because they are an infringment on their survival. At any rate, people have written entire volumes on this subject and I am digging a hole, so on that note...

Morality is a deep philosophical problem that I would guess has troubled humans since the beginning of their existence, or awareness of existence anyway... with all of the questions that arise, it is hard to believe that everyone could agree on a moral standard and therefore it would seem that all beings should do whatever they feel is right... even if it seems really f$%#ed to others; kind of a troubling thought... ciao