Posit - two organizations come to you for your expertise. "We want you to do such-and-such". The 'such-and-such' has identical results and will take identical effort. Organization one will pay you $10,000 (or the equivalent in your currency) and organization two will pay you $20,000.
Which offer do you accept?
What do you base this decision on?
If you accept the higher offer are you being corrupted by money?
No you are not being corrupted by money you are simply taking advantage of the offers that are in front of you.
To be honest one can not judge properly on this issue without all the facts the quesion is too ambiguous, is company A a charity (ie Oxfam) or is company B an evil multi-national company? Ones decision could change based on the answer too the previous question.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
@Sleep; So, if I interpret your response correctly (?), you would take the lower offer if A) Org 1 was a charity and Org 2 wasn't OR B) Org 2 was, by your estimation, 'evil'?
Curve number 2; your child needs a life saving operation that costs $20,000.
Attempt to find alternative, if possible do work for both You could in theory depending on what the work entails, work for both companies and then take half pay off the second, ergo 20K
But of course this is probably not a possibility, take the 20k if it is for a reputable cause, morals only go so far if a person has to die in the process, plus the charity will sustain itself due to there being enough good hearted people out there that are not in fear of loosing a son.
[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
We're really just being fed tiny bits of information. What about the corporate portfolios for these companies? How much respective work will be involved for each? Does either hold the possibility of future work with them in a serious fashion, depending upon my performance? Which is more prestigious in the field, leading to more potential contracts?
How can you be corrupted by money simply by agreeing to accept a higher bid from two absolutely vanilla company lookalikes?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I thought much the same thing but i thought i would try to see through the mist and try my best to answer the questions posed.
I din't say accept both offers what i said was to accept both offers but have one at a reduced rate, this would deem that the 2nd company would not feel overly cheated for the same amount of work.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Then there's nothing wrong with doing the $20,000 contract, instead of the $10,000 contract. Where no other equalizing factors are involved, why would anyone go for the lesser amount?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
That sounds like a very American view point they all sell their souls for a quick buck, damn the consequences, this is not a good philosiphy or a particularly suprising one. There are a few too many people who think like this. To be honest this question does not actually beg a moral objection in any way due to its ambiguous nature, i think all of us at the current standing would accept the money and run, the only reason you wouldn't is if you were paranaoid about the motives behind the offer.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Sleep writes: That sounds like a very American view point they all sell their souls for a quick buck, damn the consequences, this is not a good philosiphy or a particularly suprising one.
Come on, now. We've just been told these two deals are utterly, absolutely equal. What would be the justification in taking the one with the lesser fee?
Morally weight them, and I will gladly change my viewpoint. But that's not the way the question was posed.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
That sounds like a very American view point they all sell their souls for a quick buck, <snip>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of a quick buck???
I will sell my soul for a quick 5.2 Million US Dollars. With no regrets.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Why 5.2 million, as opposed to 4.2? What's magical about 5.2?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Why 5.2 million, as opposed to 4.2? What's magical about 5.2? </STRONG>
I have my plans worked out. It will allow me to work my own hours and retire at the ripe old age of 50. I smoke so, if I see 70 it will be pure blind luck. I have a place to live right now, really don't want more than I have. But I would like to travel.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Come on, now. We've just been told these two deals are utterly, absolutely equal. What would be the justification in taking the one with the lesser fee?
Morally weight them, and I will gladly change my viewpoint. But that's not the way the question was posed.</STRONG>
i am sorry but i just assume that there is some catch involved with the larger currency, maybe i am being paranoid.
I beleive i have more or less made a similar statement to yours a few times already in this thread.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
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.
I take it that both would have chosen the lesser amount if the organization offering the $20K was somehow perceived as less socially responsible (or carried less intellectual weight, in Fable's case) than the other one.
Yet there are a few capitalists among our viewers also.
)
