[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Matt,

Like Arlo, I welcome you to the discussion of morals in the modern age.

> Platt had said;
> I think people work for any number of reasons, just as people see
> quality in any number of things.
 
> Poot:  I would agree with you in the sense that it is o.k. to work with the goal
> of attaining money, or holding a job.  Lots of people I've encountered just want
>  a9-5 type deal, with decent pay, so they focus mostly on their non-work part of
> life.  Without many of these people, it would be hard to man gas-stations, or
> what not.

No doubt about it. 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. Arlo 
seems to think there is one best motive for work rather than many different 
ones that are all legitimate so long as they don't interfere with another's 
free choice.

> However, as arlo also stated , alcohol (profit) is fine.  Alcoholism (excess
> profit) can be a bad thing.
> 
> When the reasonable seeking of profit turns into the wanton, greedy 
> recklessness of unethical/immoral profit seeking at any cost, this is where
> problems arise.  there is nothing at all wrong with a free market, but when
> there are not laws to protect citizens/employees, or even the environment from
> serious harm, then it turns from a free into chaos.

Yes, regardless of the motive, when work deliberately harms others, the social 
order that promotes free choice is threatened and should be restricted.
However, many people today are quick to assume that harm is done simply when a 
Bill Gates makes a fortune, believing falsely that's there's only so much 
wealth to go around. What's really at work in such cases is envy, a low moral 
sense that works against social stability.

> Heres a quote to further elaborate
> 
> "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
 
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. 

> So I ask both of you, if the goal of maximizing share value for shareholders
> which seems to be both good (income) and bad (negative social /environmental
> effects) for many shareholders.

Again, the good far outweighs the ill-defined "bad."

> Another one:
> 
> "Social screening is also difficult [for investors] because there are hardly any
> publicly traded corporations that are thoroughly socially responsible.  Certain
> companies  may be better than others in various categories, but anybody who is
> investing in the stock market is going to have to own stock in corporations that
> do something that is reprehensible to somebody.  The fundamental problem, as we
> will explore shortly, is that the large publicly traded corporation has certain
> structural flaws that make destructive antisocial behaviour the norm."  -T.P.B
> pg 109

Notice the anti-corporate bias -- corporations can do no good, except of course 
to provide goods and services people want, not to mention provide jobs for 
millions, completely ignored by the author..
 
> I've got to split but 1 more thing:
> 
> Platt:
> >I don't seem Bill Gates suffering from lack of guidelines on how to spend his
> >billions. As for gracelessness, take a look at grunge, the style of the young
> >today. Victorians had a sense of grace and manners far surpassing the clods
> >filling the malls today.
> 
> 
> Poot:  No, indeed bill gates seems to be a model for his great contributions for
> various charities, and his own foundation, which his wife, and himself are very
> active in (or atleast so I hear).
> 
> On the second part of your comment there platt, it kind of scares me a 
> little for a few reasons:
> 
> #1: Grunge is not the "style" today, but maybe 15 years ago.  Also, clothing 
> is not a true representation of character.

What do you call the style today when pants are worn so low the crack in the 
ass is exposed? Also, clothing and grooming can tell you a lot about how a 
person regards herself.  
 
> #2: Victorians aside from grace, also had the excellent fashion apparel such 
> as corsets, and moral codes (a.k.a. grace and manners) that were 
> intellectually and socially repressive.

Repressive (morally bad) or helping to stabilizing social values (morally 
good)?

> #3:  If you ever think there is a point in time where the young generations 
> style will be something you would adhere to, it is not going to happen.
> 
> What did parents think of elvis and his gyrations?  yet now, hes an american
> icon.   need i say more?

A fine example of the moral deterioration of America, the loss of values that 
began this thread. Remember the Romans whose civilization fell to biological 
forces.

Platt