"Morals" and "ethics", eh? Everybody's in favour of those, aren't they? Unfortunately people have varied opinions about them. Some people think that it's immoral for women to uncover their faces. Some think their ethical stance requires them to kill anyone who speaks disparagingly of their religious leader. When it comes to use of military force, or development of cropping plant varieties by genetic modification, or promoting contraception, ideas of where morality leads are even more at variance. If you want to link proposals for changing economic and political structures to ethical justifications, you really need to spell out what kind of ethical vision you have in mind and what connection that has to what is being proposed.
An example of ethics where a greater good is served. A UK company employing 1000 people, from local communities, decides to relocate its operation to, say, India. The workforce, having invested their energies and careers for varying lengths of service, are now laid off and out of work, unless they decide to follow the jobs to India. The local communities become poorer, with commensurate reduction in the local services economy. The company directors, who do not themselves need to re-locate, could arguably be acting ethically in that they are providing jobs in India to folk, who are poor, to the detriment of the UK workers, who were better-off (but are now jobless). The wage bill of the company, perhaps the largest expenditure on the books, is reduced by several orders of magnitude. Please - argue that the company is acting ethically. I could use a good laugh. And I welcome any references to strawmen you manage to contrive. A company that is run ethically might even be a cooperative enterprise, where the workforce has a say in the running of the company. This company may decide that six- and seven-figure bonuses for the directors is not a priority, whereas keeping jobs for local communities is something to be desired. If the work entails manufacturing, the global carbon footprint of the company might be reduced, compared to moving the business to India, if the production is principally for UK consumption. Of course, the examples and scenarios I have provided may be complete fantasy. Sure.
... and according to the industry and the location, much of the workforce may become terminally unemployed meaning that the government now has to pick up the tab for their upkeep whilst the company has managed to increase its profits and bonuses. On the other hand, companies have to be competitive and are not charitable institutions. It's not an easy call.
drawing up a formula for what could be described as an ethical company is easy. whose gonna sign up to it tho. and would they be allowed. by they i mean government.
Well thats good, I won't have to read you espoucing that the NWO doesn't exist in further threads as you've finalized you're view-point succinctly.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the New World Order is? What is new about it, and in what sense is it an order? I've read Jon Ronson's Adventures With Extremists (very funny) in which he goes in search of the New World Order and the Bilderberg Group. Always happy to learn more.
Can an idea exist without an organisation behind it ? I think it probably can, maybe it's time has just come ? I will have to look out for Adventures with Extremists, The Psychopath Test was very good.
This doesn't seem remotely sinister. It's just a recognition of globalisation, the power of digital and the emergence of the BRIC economies. So what? Hardly a secretive cabal of the power-hungry, gathered around a large table whilst the boss strokes a white cat.
It's excellent. It is actually called Them - Adventures with Extremists. It's his first book. The Men Who Stare at Goats is his second. They are both very entertaining (and interesting).
Ethical businesses exist, social enterprise companies exist. Some even thrive. It's not government that needs to allow them, or even encourage them - it's people who need to do this. They need to take more interest in their own lives and futures. Ah. There's that fantasy element
yip there's little countries out there that are trying to remove the first hurdle, you wouldent beleive the efforts their going to to deny it.
Businesses which claim to be ethical exist. But there is a wide variance of opinion as to what ethical means. Every act or omission which someone says is ethical, someone else says the opposite. Here's an example. Stem cell researchers try to discover treatments and cures for genetically-based diseases, and claim this is a highly ethical purpose. Opponents say that using living human tissue from foetuses for research is highly unethical and should be banned.
Without taking anything away from the valid points you are making, I did chose my words carefully when I said that ethical companies exist (as opposed to companies claiming to be ethical). Whether an action or activity is ethical is naturally subjective but it is possible to achieve a broad consensus. It is also possible, if your wits are still sharp, to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Thus, if it is claimed that a company which is locally based, locally sourced and run along typical social enterprise lines is acting unethically because it is diverting income away from a non-UK-tax-paying multinational, we can readily dismiss such an accusation as merely the ravings of an argumentative, contrary old git.
I know very well what I think is ethical and what is unethical (or rather, immoral). The point I was making is that others sadly don't always agree with me. For example religious bodies with funds to invest often claim to be following an ethical investment policy. But my ideas of what is ethical are seriously at variance with theirs - as I suspect yours are too @Loz .
