Well, Bernanke is asking for more money as a stimulus. Now I'm starting to wonder about this guy.

 

Mo Money

Our nation is being led by a bunch of incompetent morons.

 

 

"Did I say billion with a B? Oops. I meant trillion with a T? Can I get a do-over... take a mulligan on that last stimulus package I requested?"

 

How many more ways can they stick things into our anus before we stand up united to revolt?

Isn't it interesting that February's $168 billion stimulus package is starting to look like small potatoes?

Isn't it interesting that February's $168 billion stimulus package is starting to look like small potatoes?

 

It is small potatoes compared with the amount of money that will go down the drain before anyone figures out that you can't save the economy by giving money to those who lost it all to begin with. If the goal was to save the economy you would be giving that same money directly to entreprenuers instead of banks. IMO the real goal is to affix wealth with certain entities outside of governmental control, and our elected representitives are going for it hook, line, and sinker.

That's my fear as well, that we're bailing out the ones who made the BAD decisions. I understand the cumulative effect they talk about but I worry about the longer term cumulative effect.

 

I'm no straight-free-market guy, I believe strongly in a managed economy. But this situation throws me for a loop because it is so far outside of our "managed" experience.

Personally I like the idea of free markets but there will always have to be some limitations, e.g. you can't allow someone to build nuclear bombs and sell them to the highest bidder. Regulation implies government and some sort of ethical judgments about what is to be allowed or not. Some economists like to claim ethical neutrality but in reality they make all sorts of ethical judgments to reach their conclusions (a good one is how much is a future life worth compared to one today). The problem comes when two people disagree about what comprises "ethical" behavior, this is a cause of much disagreement in economics and one reason I can think of why economic models don't work as well as we would like.

The problem comes when two people disagree about what comprises "ethical" behavior, this is a cause of much disagreement in economics and one reason I can think of why economic models don't work as well as we would like.

 

There's a difference between ethics and morals that is typically ignored and both words are used interchangably. Loosely, I've always felt the government's job is to regulate ethics, the negotiation of inalienable rights between us, while morals are an ever changing cultural product. But morality is merging with ethics these days, so it doesn't surprise me that economics and capitalism are being affected by it.

 

That said, I'm not sure there isn't more disagreement on moral issues than ethical ones. I would not be surprised for most people to believe that one person profiting millions of dollars is unethical.

Can unethical behavior ever be considered moral?

Can unethical behavior ever be considered moral?

 

To someone, sure. But generally, I would think not. Most assuredly immoral behavior can be quite ethical. Sex out of wedlock, or homosexuality, is the first to come to mind. I see no ethical issues with that whatsoever, yet millions of people devote themselves to a belief system that conditions this to be an immoral act.

Can unethical behavior ever be considered moral?

 

Yes, but as you suggest ethics and morality are usually closely aligned. An example that might be unethical but moral would be "If Hitler got sick and needed medical treatment, would you let him die?" I think quite a few people would say that it would be unethical but moral to let him die. An example going the other way, people might consider looking at a girl lustfully (see the sermon on the mount) to be ethical but immoral behavior.

 

I think that ethics will in general involve other people, but morality is much more personal.

Yes, but as you suggest ethics and morality are usually closely aligned. An example that might be unethical but moral would be "If Hitler got sick and needed medical treatment, would you let him die?" I think quite a few people would say that it would be unethical but moral to let him die. An example going the other way, people might consider looking at a girl lustfully (see the sermon on the mount) to be ethical but immoral behavior.

 

I think that ethics will in general involve other people, but morality is much more personal.

 

Hitler is a poor example in this case because in a world where the accepted protocol for imposing your will over an irreversibly intransigent opponent is by killing him, I fail to see how letting him die would be unethical. Also I don't believe that ethics has much to do with thoughts, only actions and as you say usually involving other people. Isn't it unethical to do that which you yourself consider to be immoral (by lusting am I not being both immoral and unethical if I am in fact being either)?

Sounds like you're trying to make the case that violating one's own moral code is an unethical act. Is that right?

I fail to see how letting [Hitler] die would be unethical.

 

Because of the Hippocratic Oath, or the variants of it that those in the medical profession swear to. As I understand it, they are required to treat people regardless of how much they don't like them. Professional ethics, which would be quite distinct from personal morals.

Sounds like you're trying to make the case that violating one's own moral code is an unethical act. Is that right?

 

I believe that to be the case. If one cannot act ethically within their own moral code it is usually called hypocrisy and would infer to me that there is something lacking in that persons moral view.

 

Because of the Hippocratic Oath, or the variants of it that those in the medical profession swear to. As I understand it, they are required to treat people regardless of how much they don't like them. Professional ethics, which would be quite distinct from personal morals.

 

Firstly, I thought you were talking about anyone in general taking him for treatment but even if we only consider doctors, wouldn't it be a violation of personal ethics to take an oath that you knowingly couldn't live up to? Would it not be immoral to take up a profession that contradicted your own ethical world view (eg. a doctor who knows he would not treat a homosexual)?

Edited October 24, 200817 yr by npts2020
multiple post merged

Firstly, I thought you were talking about anyone in general taking him for treatment but even if we only consider doctors, wouldn't it be a violation of personal ethics to take an oath that you knowingly couldn't live up to? Would it not be immoral to take up a profession that contradicted your own ethical world view (eg. a doctor who knows he would not treat a homosexual)?

 

Quite right, I find it both immoral and unethical for people to take up professions which they go into knowing that they will not be able to execute to the fullest extent as a result of their personal worldview.

 

We discussed much of this "doctors not treating homosexuals" issue in the thread below (as well as pharmacists who refuse to give medications against their beliefs):

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34728

Then you agree that in a rational individual, there is a strong correlation between morality and ethics?

I'm honestly not sure. I don't have a solid definition (one with which I'm comfortable) for either term, although I do suspect the correlation to be high.

Well, I would go so far as to state that in that theoretically perfectly rational individual there would be no meaningful distinction between morality and ethics. Now applying this to real world individuals..............soon as we can get those pesky humans to comply with the scientific process......maybe......