[MD] The Morality of obtaining profit

[Platt Holden]

Hi Poot,

> This is a good topic that seems to actually address the heart of some 
> discussions that have been occuring.

Right. Remember Lila is an "Inquiry into Morals" For some reason, most people 
here don't want to get into a discussion of morals. Glad to see you don't shy 
away from the subject. 
 
> I'll agree first off, that profit is moral.  Not only does it provide 
> motivation for people, but it also provides rewards for more work put into some
> sort of endeavor (although not all endeavors reap financial rewards).
> 
> I will be using quotes here to provide emphasis for certain points I try to
> make, but the first point, should essentially start, and end the topic.
> =====================================================
> 
> First question:  - The  Morality of obtaining profit  -
> 
> The Crux of the matter:
> 
> Platt: Yes, regardless of the motive, when work deliberately harms others, the
> social order that promotes free choice is threatened and should be restricted.
> 
> Poot:  So. There we have it, point blank.  Profit becomes immoral, when work
> deliberately harms others.

> Harm:  Physical or psychological injury or damage.
> 
> Others:  People aside from oneself

We agree up to the point where you include "psychological injury or damage." We 
can all pretty much agree on what constitutes physical harm, but psychological 
harm is a lot harder to authenticate. Was it immoral to print cartoons of 
Mohammed that purportedly did psychological damage to Muslims, causing them to 
riot? Here I think is where Pirsig's moral hierarchy comes to the rescue, 
suggesting the the intellectual value of free speech trumps the biological 
value of emotional reactions to imagined insults.     
 
> Do I need to provide examples of harm being done to others to 
> maintain/obtain higher levels of profit ?  I will state, and you may quote me,
> that harm done is, most often, not done by any individual "CEO" or "Executive"
> under some "evil" premise of hoarding a pile of cash in his/her vaults.

I agree. The case of the grandmother vs. ATT described in another post is a 
good example of lack of culpability on the part of the CEO or ATT executives. 
People in business have a moral right to assume that those who use their 
products or services are not blithering idiots.  

> There are various forms of cooperate buisiness ventures, whos goal,  and 
> LEGAL OBLIGATION , is not to provide profit for SHAREHOLDERS, but to 
> maximize it.  But , there are few laws that are being enforced, that protect the
> rights of STAKEHOLDERS .  This has had numerous benefits (jobs/infrastructure)
> for our societies, but also , as with anything else, has its negative
> aspects(harm to people/envrinonment).
 
Who are "stakeholders" and where are their "rights" affirmed in Pirsig's moral 
hierarchy?

> Platt: In a free society people are motivated to work for any
> number of reasons, making a living and profiting thereby being among the 
> most
> common. Nothing at all immoral about that that I can see from Pirsig's
> evolutionary moral hierarchy where freedom is the highest value of all.
 
> Poot: This is quite true.  Profits can secure a standard of living where the
> basic needs (food, clothing , shelter) are provided for.  They also can help
> attain any other number of material/non-material goods and services which can
> benefit both individuals and the societies they live in.
 
> Heres a quote stated previously:
> >
> >"Thus, arguing that the most socially responsible companies are also the 
> >best investments, is an inherently limited framework.  At some point, the two
> >objectives will clash.  If profit remains the primary goal, there is only so
> >far companies can conceivably go in the direction of corporate social
> >responsibility before it becomes too much of a drag on the bottom line."     - 
> >T.P.B pg107
 
> Platt: The quote assumes a premise that profit-making cannot be socially 
> responsible.
> Nothing I know of in Pirsig's moral hierarchy suggests this to be the case,
> especially when the meaning of "socially responsible" is not defined. Like what
> Pirsig said about intellectuals not defining human rights, you're just supposed
> to cheer for socially responsible companies.

> Poot:  There is no direct, or indirect statements in this quotation that 
> would infer profit-making cannot be socially responsible.

Beg to differ. The statement clearly says that a company that goes "too far" in 
pursuing social responsibility will find it's profits diminished.  

> Social 
> responsibility, is a pretty basic term.   social (societal)  
> responsibility..... being responsible for effects you have on society, both
> small and large.

Yes, but who determines what the "effects" are and whether they are good or 
bad?  

> These affects can come in different  forms, such as negative
> environmental acts/policies (a.k.a. polllution), which harm both individuals and
> the communities they live in.

I think "socially responsible" is term tossed about with a hundred and one 
different meanings like "human rights." Sounds great but when it comes right 
down to specifying just who is and who isn't socially responsible and why, 
agreement is hard to come by. Often jobs compete with environmental 
restrictions, especially in developing countries..   

> Platt:  Like what Pirsig said about intellectuals not defining human rights,
> you're just supposed to cheer for socially responsible companies.
 
> Poot:  So, the constitution, among other things, should be voided as it is an
> intellectual definition of human rights?   I mean, it was intellectuals who
> wrote it, and put it into law.  hip hip hooray for that.
 
Right. Pirsig specifies exactly what human rights are including freedom of 
speech, trial by jury, etc., all intellectual values. Trouble is, those 
intellectuals of the 60's, being subject-object oriented,  didn't know it. To 
them, human rights meant the right to smoke pot and run around naked in the 
park. 

> So, hopefully Platt, and I address this to you directly, we can find the 
> convergence of the yin and yang of the world, where profit is the Axiom that can
> be recognized by the freedom granted through democracy.
 
Yes, profit is the mark of a free society. Among communists. socialists and 
other collectivists who believe the state knows better what's good for people 
than the people know themselves, profit is evil. Unfortunately there seems to 
be quite a few people, especially among the self-appointed intelligentsia, who 
don't see a moral difference between a free and a controlled society, e.g. 
between the U.S. and Iran.

Best, Platt