Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

UnethicalFollow

#1 Apr 21 2006 at 12:10 AM Rating: Default
What exactly would you classify as being "unethical"? I'm thinking of five different issues. Stock market fraud, business and the environment(greenhouse effect, chem spills, clear-cutting), The fashion industry - Sweat Shops, the weapons industry and the tabacco industry. I bring this up because in class we rated these from most unethical to least and an overwhelming amount believed the weapons industry was the most unethical. I disagree, putting sweat shops at the top of the list. Another thing that really suprised me was how many people believed the Tobacco industry is the most unethical.

So this I guess brings me to my main question, do you think the Tobacco industry is really that unethical? I mean sure they sell a product which undoubtedly kills people but at least those people have a choice. With the sweat shops, people really have no other way of working or surviving. With the weapons industry there are millions of innocent civilians who do not choose their fate unlike the tabacco industry. Then a few students make what I think are ridiculous proposals, "Abolish the selling and use of all cigarettes." THAT would be unethical, throwing people on their *** who are employed by the many companies.

I'd like to hear your opinion on which you find to be the most unethical and why. Discuss.

#2 Apr 21 2006 at 3:58 AM Rating: Decent
I assume you mean under a standard Kantian/Categorical ethic?
Well, here are mine:
1) Stock Market Fraud- this is flat out stealing.
2) Buisness and the Environment- This is effectively reducing the earths capacity to support life, which is very much like killing.
3) Tobacco Industry- We should be left to our own devices and vices, but there is very little benefit from this.
4) Sweat Shops- Hey! These boost the economy of the third world. Yes, they are dangerous, and eisily made less so, but there are good parts.
5) Weapons Industry- If we outlawed gun ownership/sales/production, then all the good people would give up their guns, and the criminals would smuggle theirs from Mexico. Soon those criminals would rule America. However, if we continue to allow our police and citicens to have the ability to defend themselves, we might just see criminals stay out of power.
#3 Apr 21 2006 at 8:22 AM Rating: Default
it sounds to me like you are a republican, atleast at heart.

ethics is relative, and depends on your personel values and morals.

for instance, if you think human life should be more important than earning money, then making a tobaco product should seem like the ultimate evil. a product that is chemically engineered for the spacific purpose to form an addiction that is poisonious to your body and serves no real purpose designed for the sole purpose to create a dependancy so you give some company your money. the democrat mentality, putting people first.

on the other hand, if you believe that every one dies and the individual life itself is not as important as creating an economic engine that will support thousands of people and raise the standard of living for a spacific community as a whole would be more benifical to humanity than stifeling economic progress to protect an individual, you might not think tobaco is such an evil. the repub mentality, putting economic prosparity above the health or wellfare of a human life. putting people second....or third.

as a democrat, tobaco would be worse than weapons, because they kill for profit and serve no other purpose than to make a few people rich.

as a republican, weapons would be worse because they cost tax dollars, then sit doing close to nothing for most of theri life sucking up more tax dolars, while tobaco constantly contributs to the economic wellfare of society.

ethics are relative to your personel values and morals. like the whole CIA leak thing for instance. to dems, outing a CIA operative is.....unethical. to repubs, squashing someone impeeding the progress of your country is a service.

its all about what your mama told you when you were growing up. look son, a rabit, be quiet so we dont scare it away.....vs.....look son, a rabit, shoot it quick before someone else does so we can sell its hide.
#4 Apr 21 2006 at 9:19 AM Rating: Default

Shadow

Except when abolishing the tobacco industry I was merely looking at it from a "that will only send people out on the streets." Therefore, the angle I took you can not quite make the claim as you so did.


Quote:
Stock Market Fraud- this is flat out stealing


Flat out stealing over millions of innocent kids over in Iraq and places such as Tawain? Ok, so theres a gunman holding you up at the local 7/11 and hes got a kid as a hostage. You let him shoot the kids brains and have that blood on YOUR hands before you let him take the money? So I guess Martha should have got the death penalty then, eh?

Quote:
Buisness and the Environment- This is effectively reducing the earths capacity to support life, which is very much like killing.


I agree because you can't ignore facts like one in every three men in Canada will have cancer. BUT, I do not see how you rate this above say Weapons, Tobacco and sweatshops. Right now there is money being pumped into the research for the survival of our Earth, however, there is CEOs turning a blind eye when two kids dont show up for work because of death by hunger. Who am I kidding, the CEO not only does not care about this instance, he would probably not even ever hear about this instance.
Quote:

Sweat Shops- Hey! These boost the economy of the third world. Yes, they are dangerous, and eisily made less so, but there are good parts.


Geez, if you're so worried about the economy of this said country then send some fu[Antiquewhite][/Antiquewhite]cking donations over. Thereby you might actually make a difference because although you probably think going on a shopping spree at NIKE town is going to help some of the kids over there, you must be out of your mind. There is other ways to "boost the economy of the third world." Sweatshops just plainly do not work. There is kids who are stolen or sold from there parents to the owners of these sweatshops, they work from 5am-10pm without actual bathroom breaks.



#5 Apr 21 2006 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
abolishing the tobacco industry I was merely looking at it from a "that will only send people out on the streets."


It's not crack or alchohol... I don't picture many freelance farmers are going to start growing and curing tobacco harvests in their basements with glow lights.
I think if they outlawed tobacco people would ache and whine for a few weeks but then everything would settle down.

Now if you are asking about the ethics of forcing all of those poor poor tobacco companies ou of buisness... well Tough Sh[Aqua][/Aqua]it. They still have money.. they can put it into something else like the alchohol people did during prohibition.. not that big a deal concidering the lives that would be saved.

Here is a clear cut example where Money comes before Public Health.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#6 Apr 21 2006 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
Very interesting topic.

Stock market fraud, this is really the only one where there is necessarily a moral/ethical violation taking place. By definition you are stealing/lying. I'm unaware of any system of ethics where these are considered ethical activities. (Unless you were going from a strict Utilitarian standpoint and somehow there was a greater good being served, though most often I think this is not the case)

Business/Enviroment - Here there are some complicated issues, because most likely the business is providing some benefit by doing whatever it's doing that's polluting the environment (or else it wouldn't be in business) However you are responsible for a lower quality of life in future generations and if left unchecked possibly the extinction of all life on earth. Hmmm, on second thought maybe this should be number one. There's some complicated arguments against that though, too much to go into in one paragraph.

Sweatshops would come in 3rd I think, though it depends on the exact conditions. I'm ignorant of how people exactly end up working in a sweatshop. Assuming they aren't kidnapped and forced to work there, they must have taken the job of their own free will. Granted the choice they had may have been "work in the sweatshop or die," but in the absence of the sweatshop then, their choice is "or die." So, in a way they're saving these people's lives. I'm inclined to think there's a third choice that involves neither working in a sweatshop or dying, but I've never lived in an impoverished third world village so I really couldn't say with any authority. Regardless, offering a dying person a chance to live miserably in exchange for menial labor is pretty questionable at best.

Tobacco Industry - It's unclear if you mean the tobacco industry 50 years ago, when they were outright lying about the safety of their product or the tobacco industry of today where you'd have to live in a cave inside a sensory deprivation tank to not know the health risks associated with smoking. I'm assuming you mean the tobacco industry of today. It's basically the same as assisted suicide at this point. They're telling you straight up "Here, this will kill you. Want to buy it?" It's totally up to the person to choose to smoke, or if they smoke, to choose to stop.

Weapons Industry - This is a pretty broad topic. I'm assuming here you're including everything from companies that make .22 caliber pistols and slingshots right up to the corporations who build nuclear warheads. On the surface I can't find anything unethical about manufacturing a weapon. You're simply providing individuals and nations with a means to protect themselves in the event of attack. In some cases you might be providing a tool for sport (hunting or target practice) which I'd have to say is morally neutral (unless you're some kind of deer-loving hippie or have an affection for clay pigeons.) The actions people take with the weapons may be unethical, but the manufacture of them is not.
#7 Apr 21 2006 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
well Tough Sh[Aqua][/Aqua]it. They still have money.. they can put it into something else like the alchohol people did during prohibition..
Like bootleg tobacco?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Apr 21 2006 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
maybe they can switch to cultivating hemp Smiley: grin
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#9 Apr 21 2006 at 10:27 AM Rating: Default
LtGoose the Hand wrote:
So I guess Martha should have got the death penalty then, eh?


Is there any doubt?
#10 Apr 21 2006 at 11:20 AM Rating: Default
Quote:

Sweatshops would come in 3rd I think, though it depends on the exact conditions. I'm ignorant of how people exactly end up working in a sweatshop. Assuming they aren't kidnapped and forced to work there, they must have taken the job of their own free will


Although you can not assume this because there are numerous sweatshops where the kids are either stolen/kidnapped or sold by the parents. Especially in the carpet industry where these sweatshops are set up in economically destroyed towns. One step of avoiding the help of the starving kids is a labelling system to ensure that such carpets weren't made by kids. But that doesn't REALLY help because there are many many many people who do not give a rats *** about where this carpet came from, as long as it comes in a different color.

#11 Apr 21 2006 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Obviously the very pinnacle of unethical behavior is trying to get strangers on a message board to do your homework for you.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#12 Apr 21 2006 at 11:25 AM Rating: Default
Samira wrote:
Obviously the very pinnacle of unethical behavior is trying to get strangers on a message board to do your homework for you.


Smiley: lol Actually not at all though. This was a class discussion with a follow up written assignment explaining what "unethical" meant to us. But that was handed in, et cetera, although I have further interest.

My altered definition of "unethical" would be that one is benefitting because of the exploitation of anothers rights. Therefore, I chose Sweatshops as being my #1.



Edited, Fri Apr 21 12:26:52 2006 by LtGoose
#13 Apr 21 2006 at 11:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I'd tend to disagree with that, just because there are mitigating factors - employment provided, and the choice of the workers to work there or elsewhere. This assumes we're not talking about slave labor as such, or the coal mine "company store" that kept people indentured.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#14 Apr 21 2006 at 11:47 AM Rating: Default


So I guess my outlook about sweatshops is leaking a bit into slavery. But really they're quite similar. I can't remember if it is UNICEF or another organization that randomely checks carpet manufactures to see if this is going on and from the information I gathered in a movie we watched, it seemed as if most places would have child slavory/labour with little or no pay. There was one instance where the kids were rescued, however, the owner of the store escaped. A father of one of the kids was at the scene and hadn't seen his son in over five years when he was abducted by a man who promised them water and food.

#15 Apr 23 2006 at 4:54 AM Rating: Decent
been a space, gonna defend myself. (this could take a while)

to post 3: I dont feel that money/economy is superior to human life. I feel that i have a right to do what i want with my body, and that that right is superior to any (supposed, though i deny it) right of society to babysit me.

to post 4: A) I never said a damn thing about the war. B) If its's well known that most/all 7/11's have guns, then no one is likely to rob them. And if we ban guns, then the theif will still have one (being that he doenst mind breaking the law) and will still hold a hostage. C) I can't feed everyone today. I can make it at least possible for the earth to feed someone tomorrow. D) That's an entirely seperate form of sweatshop and not relevant to the discussion. Also, learn some freaking economics.

to post 5: You dont understand. Smokeers are ADDICTED. They would not "quiet down". They would riot.

to the thread: Yay Utalitarianism. Let's just decide if something is good or bad on a case-by-case basis. We'll never agree otherwise.
#16 Apr 23 2006 at 10:08 AM Rating: Default
to post 3: I dont feel that money/economy is superior to human life. I feel that i have a right to do what i want with my body, and that that right is superior to any (supposed, though i deny it) right of society to babysit me.
-----------------------------------------------------

here is the flaw with your short sighted logic.

every thing YOU do affects someone ELSE. you want to sit in a closet, and puff yourself to death, no one would deny you that right.....however.....you want to exhale your poison around other people FORCING them to poison themselves so you can be free to do what you want.....well....people are gona care.

and to make that poison for you to force on other people, alot of immigrants die very very young. you see, tobacco is not only poisonious when you breath it, long term exposier handeling the raw material,as in when you pick it, causes serious health affects.

now your freedom is costing many many people their health, weather directly from YOU, or indirectly from YOU for supporting an industry that poisons many many otehrs at every level of production.

no one lives in a bubble.

take crack for instance. the legal system, and people as a whole wouldnt give two spits about illegal drugs if people used them in theri own home, and killed themselves there too. but noooo...they get a buzz and want to drive around and kill other people, or fly an airplane full of people.

every thing you do affects someone else wether directly or indirectly.

weapons serve a purpose. protection. tobacco is poison, period. its only purpose is to poison people. the people who use it, and the people who have to stand beside the ones that use it, and the immigrants who pick it.

to stand on your soap box and say, im a good person and i was only refering to ME and MY rights and MY freedom can not be done. everyghing YOU do affects SOMEONE ELSE.

to people AWARE of how things interact and can look past THEMSELVES, tobacco is flat out corperate EVIL. there is no positive. for every one it supports, it harms many many more both directly and indirectly.

most dems can look past themselves and understand we do not live in a bubble either individualy or as a nation.

most republicans cant see past themselves. they want theirs and ***** the next guy. thus the continuation of poison incorperated, the tobacco industry, and the butchering of tens of thousands of innocent human beings in iraq to push THEIR politics on a people who want no part of it.

dems = looking at the big picture
repubs = looking at themselves.

and ethics is determined by whomever is in charge at the moment. thus, a democratic congress = Nixon getting impeached for domestic spying and a republican congress = Bush getting a pat on the back for domestic spying, tortue, breaking international treties, starting a war that didnt have to start, giving record setting tax breaks to the oil industry who is already setting record making profit.

all a matter of your personel morals and values.

ethics is not black and white, it is totaly subjective to your poit of view. or instance, the medical community here in the U.S. is FORBIDDEN to use any researh from the germans during WW2 they gatherd from TORTURE so as to discourage or atleast not encourage its use in the future.....toss in a new addministration....adn not only can we use it, we JUSTIFY the torture itself........just like the Germans did in WW2.

and it is ethical because the people in charge have differant morals and values than the people they replaced.

all a matter of how you look at it. ethics is as slippery as the politics that define it.
#17 Apr 23 2006 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Ethics define what you do when nobody is watching. The fact that Ethics committees exist are a byproduct of the natural tendency to take advantage of others. I call it a natural tendendcy because in most cases life rewards those who steal something without being caught. It does not necessarily reward those who steal most often or the largest amount, but usually those who steal without being punished. The people in this country have polluted this equation mightily by placing lawyers and politicians in the position of determining what is and is not ethical. This pollution, is and of itself, a part of the natural progression. Lawyers and politicians have spent much effort to get themselves into the postion where they are now.

This nation was great when it was run by farmers and generals. People who knew what it meant to earn a living and what the real cost was when a man's blood was spilled for a cause. It will be great again. A revolution will come, for it is the nature progression of man to build something up so he can revel in its destruction.






Or I could be wrong about that. The short answer is that if you have to ask, it's not ethical.
#18 Apr 24 2006 at 1:34 AM Rating: Default
What I do does affect those around me.
That I choose to allow or support the continuation of an industry which does not operate on a slavery basis has something powerfull to say. If those tobacco farmers were FORCED to expose themselves to the medical dangers, that would be one thing. BUT! They have the option to do otherwise, and so I will not take upon myself any guilt for any medical conditions they could have avoided; because it was their choice to grow tobacco. Also, you should now see how this ties into sweatshop labor- as an issue of INDETERMINATE and UNDETERMINABLE morality on the large scale.

Also: Stop implying that I am a republican. I'm not.
#19 Apr 24 2006 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LtGoose the Hand wrote:
Samira wrote:
Obviously the very pinnacle of unethical behavior is trying to get strangers on a message board to do your homework for you.


Smiley: lol Actually not at all though. This was a class discussion with a follow up written assignment explaining what "unethical" meant to us. But that was handed in, et cetera, although I have further interest.

My altered definition of "unethical" would be that one is benefitting because of the exploitation of anothers rights. Therefore, I chose Sweatshops as being my #1.


How about when you write about what's ethical and what's not, maybe include as unethical a school assignment on ethics in which all the bad choices are classic "evil conservative" things.

Where on that list are things like "welfare", and "wealth redistribution", and "PETA"? I get that it's a list where you rank them, but by only including things that Liberals view as bad things that Conservatives support, aren't they biasing the whole discussion of ethics?

Am I the only one seeing that this list is pretty one-sided? Is that a mistake? A coincidence? Is there another section where you're asked to rank Liberal associated things in order of their ethical value? If so, will they be defined as "ethical" instead of "unethical"?

Guess I'm just curious if this is as biased as it looks...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Apr 24 2006 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
That was comedy! You sir are defiantly the yin to shadow's yang.
#21 Apr 24 2006 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
gbaji wrote:
"PETA"?


High ranking on my list, at least
____________________________
Do what now?
#22 Apr 24 2006 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Danalog the Vengeful Programmer wrote:
gbaji wrote:
"PETA"?


High ranking on my list, at least


Highly unethical? Or ethical? Just checking...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Apr 24 2006 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Un, of course
____________________________
Do what now?
#24 Apr 24 2006 at 5:22 PM Rating: Default


There was no second-side to this assignment. The follow up assignment was a research project given today. Everyone is to research and present a company given and try to sell it or make the statement that one should "stay away" based on ethics and categories within ethics. Lucky me, I got Nike. Smiley: grin

#25 Apr 24 2006 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LtGoose the Hand wrote:
There was no second-side to this assignment. The follow up assignment was a research project given today. Everyone is to research and present a company given and try to sell it or make the statement that one should "stay away" based on ethics and categories within ethics. Lucky me, I got Nike.


Hmmm... Again. Ethics discussions that limit themselves to big corporations. Why not look into the ethics of other entities? How about the ethics of public employee unions? Or the ethics of political action committees? I just find it amusing that the entire framework of the discussion assumes a set of things that are "potentially unethical", and which only include things that Liberals are opposed to.

Any wonder why students with this sort of education backround go on to protest things like big business, tobacco, and the stock market (accumulation of wealth! Hmmm... Ties into another thread even)? Suprise, surprise!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Apr 24 2006 at 5:56 PM Rating: Default



The project I believe is a way for the teacher to educate the class about "big coporations" that we know so well. Not so much a liberal conspiracy, rather making the students aware of the most well known companies.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 421 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (421)