Isn't "The Ends justify the means" a morally bankrupt idea in almost any value system?
828039
This phrase could mean anything and it could be used in anything.\n\nIt doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being morally bankrupt.\n\nMy Mom used it frequently when teaching us about responsibility.
648681
it is immoral but not illegal
138228
Why would you jeprodize your morals and ethical beliefs for someone elses benefit?  No amount of $ is worth legal consequenses.
718247
No, any action you have to justify is wrong.
559848
I don't think owning a business is inherently evil.  but a lot of people get SO concerned about the bottom line that they lose sight of how they are treating their employees, other companies, suppliers, maybe even ignore the law.  I think they may be getting lost in "the end justifies the means" mindset.
779934
No.  The whole concept of "vicarious atonement" was invented purely to subjugate and control the masses. \n\n"All your righteousness is as filthy rags."  This is the sort of amoral callousness that passes for "morality" amongst the "pious."\n\nIt's quite a racket though - I'll give them that.  Concepts like "Original Sin" and the salvationist theology of christianity provide a nice system of threats and rewards with which the powers-that-be can exploit the ignorant peasants, and the peasants themselves feel vindicated by the idea that their oppression in this life is securing them a good seat in the Afterlife.
708829
I agree on moral grounds. I think if you choose to root your business in American soil, you have a responsibility to till that soil. If you've set up your business in the U.S., you've just invested in the U.S, from the employees, to the community where those employees live, on up to the national economy. \n\nBy not paying your employees a living wage (which is not the same thing as a minimum wage), you've shown that you place little value on their lives and well-being. The people of America are its finest resource. So, not paying them enough to live, ultimately degrades the value of that resource in terms of health, happiness, and productivity. \n\nMuch of a resources' value is determined by the cost to produce it. The cost to produce paper includes the money spent on logging, to process it, to package it, etc. The cost to 'produce' a person is a little more hazy. But the basics I would imagine to be: food, housing, utilities, transportation, and medical coverage. These are basic human needs. Not wants. Needs. Things a full time job at $5.15 an hour do not cover. If a business cannot afford its resources, then that business should be out of business. \n\nI find it odd when people say things like low-wage workers make low-wages because they have no ambition or their lazy. We apply this survival of the fittest mentality to people, but as soon as someone says 'lets raise the minimum wage', no one applies that same survival of the fittest rationale with businesses, instead they're arguing about the stress it puts on them, and that higher wages may force them shut their doors. When did we become so dehumanized that we rally to the side of entities over people?
1141513
It's not only reasonable, it's necessary.  Like all good things, capitalism becomes detrimental when taken to extremes.  Specifically, a completely unfettered market inevitably tends toward a concentration of economic and political power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, until the system becomes undemocratic and oppressive.
399309
But it DOES have a moral! The moral is that Communism does not work. Communism seems like a great idea at first, but eventually natural heirarchies evolve and the government becomes autocratic.\n\nIn Animal Farm the pigs incite a revolution against the tyrannical Farmer Jones, but by the end of the book they themselves have become the tyrants - indistinguishable from humans.\n\nMost of the characters in the book represent real individuals or organisations from the Communist Revolution in Russia. \n\nFarmer Jones is Tsar Nicholas, Old Major is Marx, Snowball is Trotsky, Napoleon is Lenin or Stalin, Squealer presents the propanda machine, the horses are the people (Boxer representing the working class Proletariats and Molly representing the aristocratic Bourgoise), the raven represents the church, the dogs represent the Red Army, and so on.
1102275
It doesnt make sense because you have decided there are moral people. There is a way that seems right to a man and this way ends in death...God knows that we are all immoral...those that consider themselves moral have no use for God they are the one that are in trouble the rest of us understand that we need God seek him and he reveals himself to those who see value in him...It really makes sense when you know God nad its not suposed to make sense to those who have no value in him....Just the way it works.
567205
All things being equal, any decision is best made by logic since logical decisions almost always reflect reality. Making decisions by "morals" is just another way of saying "making decisions based on ideology." Some ideological decisions work, but trying to decide everything within the limits that every ideology has will often lead to greater problems. \n\nA good example from my own life is my stance on abortion. I intensely dislike abortion, perhaps because I have 5 children and 8 granchildren. But from a logical and realistic standpoint, there is no other option than to place the decision to have an abortion where it belongs: with those who get pregnant. Forcing a pregnant person to bear to term a baby she doesn't want is, IMHO, just plain stupid. It's an incorrect application of ideology.
417774
No.\n\nHere is my usual response to that question:\n\nReligion can act as a guide to morals and values. However, morals and ethics of religion didn't originate from religion. People knew that it was wrong to steal and kill long before Abraham. As a matter of fact, "ethos", a Greek term for "ethics" was coined hundreds of years before Christ by Greek philosophers. \n\nHowever, I am an atheist but that doesn't make me less ethical or less moral than with someone with religion. A person is told to practice morals and ethics because of their religion. Atheists practice morals and ethics because we reason them out to be the morally correct thing to do in our lives. We have the intellect to reason out that it is the right thing to do, not that we are rewarded with a Heaven after death. That is a greater sense of moral purpose.
666671
I certainly think that some people that are in favor of the death penalty are people that would murder as they have no value of life. Yes it is barbaric and wrong to lower your morals to that of the alleged perpetrator.
864351
Absolutely.\n\nReligion and God(s) are not responsible for our development of a "moral compass." Morality is determined by society and as society changes, so do morals.\n\nThe Marquis de Sade stated it nicely, "Moral science is simply geography misconstrued." What might be acceptable in Los Angeles would be considered wrong in Bangkok and vice-versa.\n\nMany have suggested that religion is an invention in order to lay a moral framework. If you think of Santa Claus and the threat of no reward if you didn't obey your parents, you can see the similarities.\n\nAnd to your question of "what's the point of it all?" I'm not sure what you're referring to - but if it's "religion" then you could always go with what Karl Marx said: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."\n\nHe was stating that the promise of a "great reward in the hereafter" kept the worker (proletariat) in line and complacent with their station in life which then benefited the wealthy (bourgeoisie). \n\nDefinitely good stuff to think about and discuss with a group of friends :-)
874102
Good exists. Bad is only lack of good. It does'nt exist. Light exists. There is a planet that sends us light. Darkness does'nt exist. There is no planet sending us darkness. It is just the lack of light. One example. To be stingy is considered "bad". But it is just not being generous -which is a moral quality. In order to be generous one has to have a high moral quality. Being stingy is just not having this moral quality.
754090
I don't think of the American conscience in these terms, so I cannot answer this question.\n\nI doubt the liberals will ever provide a consensus for morality.
1128117
Ah, someome with a brain oin his head around here(rare).\n\nYes,people use religion to have it both ways:A promise of eternity AND buffet style,my sins dont count but yours are grounds for bashing you-styled,ahem,"Morality'>\n\nYes,people want to have their cake and eat it to.\n\nShows you how silly the whole thing is.