Morality of jobs and what am I supposed to DO for the rest of my days on this earth?

[Magicsilence]

I have. When running a music store (acting manager).

I often had people come in looking, and ask for comparisons to (far higher priced than we carried) brands.

Sometimes, by pointing out the catalogue prices, they chose to buy the lesser priced instrument with the knowledge that it was a student instrument, rather than the better but higher priced name brand. (EG: come in looking for a Fender, and we carried Epiphone and Sunlight. Generally, high end fenders dust the mid-range student models we carried… but the trick to sales is to point out the differences and let the customer make an informed decision, and if they really do want or need the fender, send them to the Fender dealer.)

I can see how this would be ok as manager, but what about the lowly sales assistant who is told to ‘sell, sell, sell’ ?

 

[Magicsilence]

The pursuit of profit is not itself wrong,and neither is profit as a goal. It’s the person who is doing the pursuing of the profit who is potentially wrong. It is the decisions that the worker makes within the context of the career that are potentially wrong. Anyone who claims to be a Christian ought to have a very nuanced sense of judgement when he is working,and should try to avoid,as often as possible,compromising his sense of right and wrong. Being tied to a career or an economic system can lead people to smother their own consciences little by little,doing things that they would normally consider wrong if it were not for the need to keep the job,so that ultimately they self-justify their own and dubious values and behavior.
That is sometimes why people get defensive when you call into question the morality of their occupation. It’s like when veterans of war take umbrage at people who have never been to war when they point out instances of cruelty and evil behavior on the part of soldiers.
The veterans will say “Have you ever been to war? You don’t know what you’re talking about! You have no experience in war! I’ve been there!” And all the while they know darn well that the criticisms are accurate.

Anthony, I would have thought it necessary that action possess a medium?

And you express here exactly what I am trying to understand. When Catholics are called to make these decisions, are they making them? Or compromising?

If this is really is what is happening, where are the programs of support from bishops? Homilies on finding a job to please the Lord? Retreats to help Catholic workers?

To me, it seems like the majority of Catholics do not acknowledge this problem? I don’t know exactly what that implication reveals?

 

[Magicsilence]

You clearly are not studying Austrian economics in college. Alas, neither did I! Try here… start with this book.

The author is “Reformed Presbyterian,” whatever that means. However, I have read his book “Success” (sorry, I can’t find the link right now, despite extensive searching), and am more than halfway through the “Economic Commentary on Proverbs” (a.k.a. “God’s Success Manual”), and I detect nothing in his economic commentary that contradicts Catholic teaching.

I highly recommend this book. A real eye-opener… and mind-opener… and soul-opener…

I am highly wary of any preacher who teaches that free market capitalism is preached by the bible.

For those interested (and to the many above who see profit as the end of business), a look at the catechism may help:

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204

A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” **She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.**207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

 

[rlg94086]

I just think the distinction is artificial. Whether someone is committing child murder with abortion, taking clients to strip clubs, or putting all their energy into getting more money, the focus and means are immoral, even if not unethical according to societies standards.

Hence, where the focus is immoral, I cannot see how it would NOT be immoral to work there.

Then, by all means, seek out a boss who is absolutely sinless.

My boss’ appetite for strip clubs on occasion does not mean it is his focus. It is a failing, however, and I hope he overcomes that failing. If I thought that his focus on profit was at the expense of everything else, I wouldn’t work for him.

And yet, many sales jobs involve at least a small amount of customer manipulation.

You are making the assumption that all manipulation is sinful.

Moreover, IMO, (for example) asking employees to work late just to earn the business even more profit is an example of why working there would be wrong.

Asking people to work late is not at all sinful. Demanding that they work regular long hours without proper compensation would be sinful.

Based on your posts, you should avoid anything in the business world. Take a vow of poverty and find a job that will allow you the absolute minimum income in order to exist.

 

[jmcrae]

Moreover, IMO, (for example) asking employees to work late just to earn the business even more profit is an example of why working there would be wrong.

What if working late is the difference between staying in business and going bankrupt? What if you have a client who needs his product by morning, or else he will go out of business - meaning that you have to stay and work all night on it? Are you willing to cause someone else real suffering, just because you don’t want to work late?

 

[Magicsilence]

What if working late is the difference between staying in business and going bankrupt? What if you have a client who needs his product by morning, or else he will go out of business - meaning that you have to stay and work all night on it? Are you willing to cause someone else real suffering, just because you don’t want to work late?

I did say - working late to earn even more profit.

If you read the relevant sections from the Catechism I posted above, it helps clarify the example.

 

[Magicsilence]

Then, by all means, seek out a boss who is absolutely sinless.

Not sinless, but not clearly immoral.

My boss’ appetite for strip clubs on occasion does not mean it is his focus. It is a failing, however, and I hope he overcomes that failing. If I thought that his focus on profit was at the expense of everything else, I wouldn’t work for him

.

And how do you tell? Isn’t the use of immorality to gain money a significant pointer in the wrong direction?

You are making the assumption that all manipulation is sinful.

Yes!

Based on your posts, you should avoid anything in the business world. Take a vow of poverty and find a job that will allow you the absolute minimum income in order to exist.

This is exactly what I was asking. If my position is based on the teaching found in the catechism, then any job that is tied in with the business world will be immoral if carried out as intended, due to the immorality of focus, even if the job itself is not directly immoral.

 

[davidv]

This is exactly what I was asking. If my position is based on the teaching found in the catechism, then any job that is tied in with the business world will be immoral if carried out as intended, due to the immorality of focus, even if the job itself is not directly immoral.

Seems to me, that you are asking for the impossible. God is not the direct boss on any paying job that I know of.

Given that humans are sinners, any boss, at anytime, may be subjecting their employees to immorality, if not objectively, then subjectively in their intent. God put us in this world to become holy and bring others with us. If the world were perfect, as it seems you are expecting, then we wouldn’t need to be here.

 

[Magicsilence]

Seems to me, that you are asking for the impossible. God is not the direct boss on any paying job that I know of.

But why not? We constitute 1/6th of the world population, and 1 in 3 is Christian. Why is their a vacuum surrounding moral jobs?

Given that humans are sinners, any boss, at anytime, may be subjecting their employees to immorality, if not objectively, then subjectively in their intent. God put us in this world to become holy and bring others with us. If the world were perfect, as it seems you are expecting, then we wouldn’t need to be here.

It seems you are confusing sin with immorality.

Clear immorality must be avoided, while sin tolerated.

 

[jmcrae]

But why not? We constitute 1/6th of the world population, and 1 in 3 is Christian. Why is their a vacuum surrounding moral jobs?

As long as you think that striving to get money is a sin, you are going to think that any paid work is “immoral,” no matter what.

But the reality is that the majority of jobs are just fine. As others have also said, don’t work for any place whose values you don’t share - do your research ahead of time - but there are plenty of jobs out there for hard-working, honest folks.

 

[rlg94086]

This is exactly what I was asking. If my position is based on the teaching found in the catechism, then any job that is tied in with the business world will be immoral if carried out as intended, due to the immorality of focus, even if the job itself is not directly immoral.

Clearly, that is what you believe, so you need to become a monk, at a minimum, but then you need to make sure your Abbot does not have any flaws…perhaps a hermit.

Regarding manipulation, there are multiple meanings.
Websters:

Main Entry: ma·nip·u·late webster.com/images/audio.gif Pronunciation: \mə-ˈni-pyə-ˌlāt\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): ma·nip·u·lat·ed; ma·nip·u·lat·ing Etymology: back-formation from manipulation, from French, from manipuler to handle an apparatus in chemistry, ultimately from Latin manipulus Date: 1834

2a**:** to manage or utilize skillfully b**:** to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one’s own advantage

3**:** to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one’s purpose : doctor

I removed meaning #1, because it doesn’t apply (mechanical manipulation). Meanings 2b and 3 are clearly immoral, as they are done in an unfair manner. Meaning 2a is moral - managing or utilizing skillfully is not a sin. If you consider negotiation a form of manipulation, then this is the definition I understand.

 

[Magicsilence]

As long as you think that striving to get money is a sin, you are going to think that any paid work is “immoral,” no matter what.

But the reality is that the majority of jobs are just fine. As others have also said, don’t work for any place whose values you don’t share - do your research ahead of time - but there are plenty of jobs out there for hard-working, honest folks.

This is not what I think, my position is detailed in my above posts.

And I have done my research, its what brought up this thread.

 

[Magicsilence]

Clearly, that is what you believe, so you need to become a monk, at a minimum, but then you need to make sure your Abbot does not have any flaws…perhaps a hermit.

Ok, thanks for trying.

Regarding manipulation, there are multiple meanings.
I removed meaning #1, because it doesn’t apply (mechanical manipulation). Meanings 2b and 3 are clearly immoral, as they are done in an unfair manner. Meaning 2a is moral - managing or utilizing skillfully is not a sin. If you consider negotiation a form of manipulation, then this is the definition I understand.

Not that it is entirely on topic, but I don’t think ‘utilising skillfully’ is the essence of sales, but more suited to mechanical or physical labour.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[rlg94086]

Not that it is entirely on topic, but I don’t think ‘utilising skillfully’ is the essence of sales, but more suited to mechanical or physical labour.

Okay…how about “managing skillfully?”

 

[Magicsilence]

Okay…how about “managing skillfully?”

Again, more applicable to a head of department, than a salesman.

Sales either pushes its own product and is not entirely objective, or it is honest.

I think manipulation falls firmly into the first activity.

 

[rlg94086]

Again, more applicable to a head of department, than a salesman.

Sales either pushes its own product and is not entirely objective, or it is honest.

I think manipulation falls firmly into the first activity.

As I have commented earlier, you clearly don’t understand business. There is nothing immoral about presenting my product in its best light to my customer with the desire that they buy from me instead of my competitor. There is no moral requirement for me to lay out all of the pros and cons of my product and my competitor’s product. It is their job to do such analysis.

I am not perfect. I do sin, and I am working on that. But, to claim that business is immoral is so scrupulous on your part, that I will definitely pray for you. You are either playing us all as a joke, or you really need to talk to a priest.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, more applicable to a head of department, than a salesman.

Sales either pushes its own product and is not entirely objective, or it is honest.

I think manipulation falls firmly into the first activity.

Why is it wrong to point out the features and benefits of a product to a potential customer? And why would it be wrong to point out the advantages of seeming “flaws” in the product.

If it’s actually defective in some way, then obviously you should not be attempting to sell it - you should remove it from your inventory until the defects have been fixed.

This is what is happening with Mattel right now - they have had to remove certain items from their inventory because one of their manufacturers thought he would save the company money by using a cheaper kind of paint - he didn’t realize that it was poisonous, I guess.

 

[Magicsilence]

As I have commented earlier, you clearly don’t understand business. There is nothing immoral about presenting my product in its best light to my customer with the desire that they buy from me instead of my competitor. There is no moral requirement for me to lay out all of the pros and cons of my product and my competitor’s product. It is their job to do such analysis.

I am not perfect. I do sin, and I am working on that. But, to claim that business is immoral is so scrupulous on your part, that I will definitely pray for you. You are either playing us all as a joke, or you really need to talk to a priest.

I do understand business, but we are clearly disagreeing on what is acceptable within sales.

I am inclined towards scrupulosity, but I don’t think this is a manifestation of it. Rather, we are disagreeing on the nature of business.

If a customer specifically asked you whether your product was more suited to his needs (vs a competitor), and you knew that your product would suit him fine, despite competitor offerings being better, how would you respond?

 

[Magicsilence]

Why is it wrong to point out the features and benefits of a product to a potential customer? And why would it be wrong to point out the advantages of seeming “flaws” in the product.

It is not.

If it’s actually defective in some way, then obviously you should not be attempting to sell it - you should remove it from your inventory until the defects have been fixed.

Not necessarily. What one customer may perceive as a defect, another may herald as a necessary component.

This is what is happening with Mattel right now - they have had to remove certain items from their inventory because one of their manufacturers thought he would save the company money by using a cheaper kind of paint - he didn’t realize that it was poisonous, I guess.

Indeed, so Mattel were pushing profit above safety. I believe that in a less direct and evident manner (and with different circumstances and variables), this is exactly how U.S and U.K businesses operate.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[jmcrae]

Indeed, so Mattel were pushing profit above safety.

One group of people did, yes. I assume they have been fired.

I believe that in a less direct and evident manner (and with different circumstances and variables), this is exactly how U.S and U.K businesses operate.

And risk being sued into bankruptcy? Why?