Bad money...bad, bad, bad money

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:03 pm

And with that in mind (that there was no real purpose to the start of this thread) let's change the rules a bit - I can do that, it's my thread!

Company number one (10K)is a non-profit charitable group that can only pay you after you have completed the task.

Company number two (20K)is an international megamonopoly that has been accused of witholding nutritional aid to the third world because ther's no profit in it. They can advance you the entire sum.

You have been out of work for seven months, are three month's behind with your utility payments (which will be turned off tomorrow unless you pay them), the last time your children had non-powdered milk was two weeks ago, the beans are gone, your unemplyment has run out, the clinic has closed and you don't qualify for welfare or food stamps since your income 'base' is $2.00 above the yearly limit. Your house is about to be forclosed on, the bank is sending someone to take your car, and 20K will forestall all this and save you. Which offer do you accept then?

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:24 pm

Now, just a second. What you're saying is a nonstarter: the way you've phrased it, if you do the 10K job, you don't even have a roof over your head, and you're foreclosed--so logically, you can't even do the job.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:29 pm

@fable; astute observation. So?

KidD01 · Post by **KidD01** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:42 pm

Originally posted by Anatres:
An exercise in financial security:
<SNIP>

Which offer do you accept?

What do you base this decision on?

If you accept the higher offer are you being corrupted by money?

From my job experience, working environment is always all about money. But try to keep it within your righteous sense, well you can try not to if you're sure that you're not gonna caught red handed anyway

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 5:19 pm

@Anatres, I may be dense, but what choices are you offering? Are you saying, you either do the 20K job, or you're literally homeless? Is that the choice? If you want to posit a moral dilemna, you have to make the choices clear.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 11:37 pm

Originally posted by Anatres:
The situation was posed as ambigously as possible to elicit varied responses based solely on the amount of money involved.

The fact that as I got closer and closer to taking away each of Sleep's and Fable's moral 'requirements' the money lost all it's moral worth. And just became income.

If all other things are equal apart from you getting 10K or 20K in payment, then this is not a moral issue, just a financial one. Or, we can make it a moral issue by involving some finacial moral questions:

If I take the higher offer, 20K, I get more money, I pay more tax (supposedly good for society) and after having payed my own expenses, I have more money left to give to help and care organisations. The only part who doesn't benefit from this, is the company, and since they made the offer, I presume they can afford it.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 11:37 pm

Originally posted by Anatres:
<snip>

Yet there are a few capitalists among our viewers also.
<snip>

Thanx - I need cheering up this morning, now I'm all better

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Jul 05, 2001 11:41 pm

Originally posted by Anatres:
<snip>
Company number one (10K)is a non-profit charitable group that can only pay you after you have completed the task.

Company number two (20K)is an international megamonopoly that has been accused of witholding nutritional aid to the third world because ther's no profit in it. They can advance you the entire sum.

You have been out of work for seven months, are three month's behind with your utility payments (which will be turned off tomorrow unless you pay them), the last time your children had non-powdered milk was two weeks ago, the beans are gone, your unemplyment has run out, the clinic has closed and you don't qualify for welfare or food stamps since your income 'base' is $2.00 above the yearly limit. Your house is about to be forclosed on, the bank is sending someone to take your car, and 20K will forestall all this and save you. Which offer do you accept then?

Well even if I was without all the debt and financial problems you state above - I'll take the 20K job while I look for a better paying job

I wouldn't ever take the 10K job while I have a better financial offer.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 7:02 am

Originally posted by fable:
@Anatres, I may be dense, but what choices are you offering? Are you saying, you either do the 20K job, or you're literally homeless? Is that the choice? If you want to posit a moral dilemna, you have to make the choices clear.

The 'choice' is not mine to make. It is yours - based on the available data. I know the choice I would make, in all cases (short of physical death for anyone involved).

I believe I stated this scenario about as clearly as I could. If you cannot discern the moral delimma then I must ask, why not? Are you 'picking too many nits'?

Another thing, life is full of ambiguous choices. Hence we all form moral rulers to measure our actions against. My exercise is to help me understand you by watching you choose your way through a mine strewn path of ambiguity in search for the 'greater good'.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 7:56 am

I have not answered recently because i do not like the ground rules you set, i can not see any reason for these questions except that you are attampting to look better by manipulating us to your end. Any further arguments from me may be PM'd as i can not be bothered to vent my vitriol on GB.

I am sorry but i do not feel like being manipulated in this way, there seems to be very little end product.

Any opinions to the contary by anatres are welcome.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:17 am

@Sleep; If you feel that I am attempting to manipulate you, I would appreciate your view as to how.

If you feel that the public forum is not the place for that, then I welcome your private comments.

We have engaged in other 'intellectual' discussions throughout this forum and I just wonder what makes this thread any different.

Perhaps I can put your mind at ease by stating that I don't have any ulterior motives in that I'm not trying to 'trick' anyone into 'exposing' anything other than their honest feelings concerning their moral view of money (in and of itself). In other words, there is no right or wrong answer (in my view) to this discussion.

I, like you and everyone else that posts here, have my concepts of other's political, moral and religous views just from what has been written in other threads. So I ask you, what could be my motives?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:23 am

@Anatres, my reaction isn't as strong as Sleep's, but I admit I don't understand what you're goal is. I've seen tv programs (waaaaay in the past) involving authority figures in various professions who debated issues, and were occasionally posed questions similar to those you ask. However, a) each question also had a clear purpose which was stated, b) the moral dilemna was very obvious to all, and c) the imposed conditions were varied and subtle, so as to "trap" additional solutions that would diffuse the moral tension. I don't think any of those points have been manifested, here.

I believe I stated this scenario about as clearly as I could. If you cannot discern the moral delimma then I must ask, why not? Are you 'picking too many nits'?

If you stated the scenario as clearly as you could, and most of those who chose to cooperate expressed repeated difficulty (one way or another) in understanding you, then I must ask, in turn, why aren't you examining your own methodology?

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:29 am

Originally posted by Anatres:
their honest feelings concerning their moral view of money (in and of itself).

Good or bad money makes the world go round.IMHO If we lived in the 'Star Trek' universe it might be different.

My rules I live by:

1. If it will help my family I will do it, good or bad, judge me how ever you want. Family should come before anything else.IMHO

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:48 am

Originally posted by fable:
[
I believe I stated this scenario about as clearly as I could. If you cannot discern the moral delimma then I must ask, why not? Are you 'picking too many nits'?

If you stated the scenario as clearly as you could, and all those who chose to cooperate expressed repeated difficulty (one way or another) in understanding you, then I must ask, in turn, why aren't you examining your own methodology?[/QB]

Perhaps I should have said 'I stated the scenario as clearly as I intended'.

I'm curious about your comment concerning 'authority figures'. I'm not, nor do I want to be toward anyone other than my own children.

I'm just trying to ascertain how differnt people will react to difficult situations. As I feel that therein lies our true nature. Most of the previous discussions we've engaged in (creationism v evolution, etc.) are real easy (IMO) to respond to. But when the (as I see it) true nature of life in general (ambiguity) creeps in some have difficulty responding to that.

In my profession we have a concept called 'analysis paralysis'. I was just curious as to whether that concept could apply to more general decision making processes.

Also, among my general circle of friends we have these kinds of discussions all the time. We call them 'the line in the sand' debates. As in, 'Where do you draw the line in the sand? And when do you cross it?'.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:54 am

Could you explain "analysis paralysis?"

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:57 am

@fable; as in not being able to make a decision due to spending all your time analysing....('picking too many nits').

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 9:11 am

Okay. I would suggest (with respect) that there's been no analysis paralysis, here, because the questions had no narrowing, focusing conditions forcing repliers into a series of moral dilemnas. There was nothing to require heavy analysis. We were all simply bewildered.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 9:29 am

Originally posted by fable:
Okay. I would suggest (with respect) that there's been no analysis paralysis, here, because the questions had no narrowing, focusing conditions forcing repliers into a series of moral dilemnas. There was nothing to require heavy analysis. We were all simply bewildered.

I beg to differ with you. Not everyone was bewildered. Some found their 'line in the sand' quite easily while others didn't.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 9:36 am

I don't think Anatres is trying to manipulate ur or make us "reveal" something about our moral by asking these question, but regarding the 2nd condition, I very well understand the reactions from both Sleep and Fable.

The question is too weighted, possibly also too loaded, to make a good ground for moral philosophic reasoning and ethics. The question either contains to mucn information (too detailed consequences) or to little (will I be in a postition where I can have a influence on the big bad multinational organisation? What kind of charity work is the other org doing, and how corrupt or incorrupt are they?)

To me, there are no clear moral benefits at all with taking the 10K offer. Why should I sacrifice so much (nutrition for my kids, housing for my family etc) by working for an unknown charity organisation? They might me equally, if not more, corrupt than the company. (Swedish SIDA, for instance, built tennis courts for the Swedish help-workers for charity money). Also, they might be working towards goals I don't morally agree with, like some Christian missonary organisations that condintions the help so you have to convert to a Christain to get it.

So, I think the nature of question is simply not suitable for a discussion of moral philosophy. But maybe that was not the aim?

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri Jul 06, 2001 9:55 am

@C Elegans, once again 'spot on'.

Introspection is hard. It can cause anger at the outside world and/or mental paralysis. Especially when it is prompted by ambiguous situations. And I feel that life presents us with more of those than the ones that are 'cut-and-dried'.

And it is those situations that can cause one to reexamine one's 'world views'. And (IMO) this is true intellectual and personal growth. Whether one changes those positions or not.