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

[Ridgerunner]

Thank-you for your prayers, brother in Christ :hug3:

The question on the mafia was really to get at the core of the issue. Why is working for the mafia immoral, if you consider the job in isolation to any other threats, or activities?

Or, for better clarification, why is working for an abortion clinic immoral?

But you can’t consider the job in isolation, since every last thing the Mafia does is in furtherance of crime and, working for them, you would be knowingly participating in it. It has no purpose at all of providing goods and services to those who legitimately want them.

Abortion clinics also have an immoral purpose, and everything everyone does there has the furtherance of that immorality as the purpose of their function. And they all know that’s what they’re doing. Again, it’s not a job in which one provides true goods or services that benefit humanity, but might be owned or operated by an immoral person. It’s sole and only purpose is to kill the innocent.

I think I can, without undue fear of being wrong, predict that neither you nor anyone else will find any function in this world that does not and cannot somehow serve the evil purposes of some. Jesus never told most of us to utterly retire from this world. He did tell his apostles to give up everything they were doing in order to do His work. But He did this not to preserve them from rubbing elbows with the evil men of this world, but to produce an affirmative good. He definitely did not tell the rest of us to retire from this world in any way.

Possibly my favorite story in the N.T. is the one about the centurion whose daughter was dying. Jairus, I believe, was his name. Roman soldiers were extremely brutal in baftle, and the empire was extremely cruel to its enemies. Yet, it must be admitted, that it brought peace and prosperity at times to much of the world. The Middle East, for instance, was a better place to live in then than now. Jesus had the ideal opportunity, in dealing with Jairus, to tell him to immediately quit being a centurion or even a soldier, because of the evils that often attended “being in that business”. But He didn’t. No, He said He had not found greater faith than the centurion’s in all of Israel.

Tax collectors in the empire were usually unscrupulous folks, which is why they were hated. They had to make their own salaries out of the money they collected ABOVE what the lawful tax was. That’s how it worked. Yet Jesus picked Zaccheas out of the crowd and asked to dine with him. Zaccheas was moved to be more charitable and more fair in his dealings. But there is nothing in the scripture that tells us Jesus told him to stop being a tax collector, and nothing to tell us that Zaccheas did stop being one. On the contrary, Jesus told the crowd, in another instance, that they should render the tax to Caesar, knowing full well how it worked and what awful things Caesar often (but not always) did with the money.

In both instances, Jesus did not condemn, or attempt to dissuade people participating in activities that could, and did, have evil results at times. But the activities were not, in and of themselves, evil, with evil as their direct purpose. They were otherwise legitimate activities that could, and did, benefit the society but which lent themselves to immoral activities in the hands of the right actor. If a person wanted to avoid the slightest contact with evil, he wouldn’t even pay his taxes, because governments and government people often do immoral things. It was even worse under the Caesars. But Jesus told us to pay them, because we are legitimately subject to authority; the purpose itself is not evil, and goods also result.

Jesus could have told us to go live in a cave in the desert and eat locusts if He thought that’s the only way we could gain salvation. But He didn’t say that. But He did caution us that “even the just man falls seven times a day”. That’s your optimum result, Magic, falling seven times a day. And I really believe that. If you think about what you do and fail to do in a given day, you can easily see it. But Jesus didn’t add “…and you’ll all go to hell for it too.” Jesus was and is loving and kind. He took on our very flawed nature in order to save us. But being one of us, He had no illusions that we would somehow become perfect or that our activities in this “vale of tears” would be unmixed blessings.
He understood.

(ran out of room. Continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(continued)

I personally think we have an obligation to provide goods and services that others need in order to live decent lives. But since this is a flawed world, we can’t find an occupation that is without flaw. So, should we let people starve because maybe the top execs of Archer Daniels Midland make an awful lot of money? No. Our purpose in working for ADM is to feed ourselves and others. Working in an agribusiness is not evil in itself even if we feel some people in it might be acting immorally and that perhaps they abuse our work to do it. It is not our intent to enable immorality, but to feed people.

 

[Magicsilence]

This statement is really vague.

I think we need to ask for some clearcut understanding of what YOU mean by “maximization of profits”.

Saying “doing whatever possible to increase profit” is simply an unhelpful comment.

For example, a bakery could add sawdust to their flour … that would increase profits … for about a day. And then they would be out of business.

So, I think you need to be really specific.

Can you provide some concrete everyday examples of companies you don’t want to work for that exercise “profit maximization”?

It’s easy to use generalities. And then argue when folks are trying to be helpful. Unless you just have time on your hands and enjoy giving people a hard time. I think there’s a Web term for posters who do that.

So, let’s see some specifics.

Since you are reluctant to take ANY job, except for the most menial, owing to immorality, please provide examples of how every company is engaging in immoral acts by maximizing profits.

Thanks.

• Al

Ok -

Major food stores using underhand tactics to temporarily boost sales

Clothes stores using sex in advertising (year round)

Retail stores with sales assistants that are trained to increase the amount customers spend, regardless of needs

Banks that employ people to use cold-calling to boost sales, and lying to the customer about the purpose of the call

Used car salesmen that deliberately neglect to mention problems with cars

Supermarkets forcing down the price from suppliers by way of their position

Newspapers reporting stories with sketchy facts just to boost sales

Sports goods firms allowing abuse to continue by their suppliers (Nike etc…)

Medical establishments providing contraception, abortion, and even sexual health care to people in pornography

Electronic goods makers putting out products with slight defects, and not properly testing them (Apple with the recent iMac/iTouch)

Professional Accounting Firms with nights out getting drunk to increase team bonding (i.e good luck getting a promotion if you are not willing to join them), in addition to doing accounts for immoral businesses (abortion, strip clubs, sex shops)

Manufacturing firms using cheaper, but dangerous raw materials (Mattel)

Supermarkets collaborating to price fix ( + general occurrence of this phenomenon)

Small building firms who do a number of shoddy jobs, close down the business, and open up under a new name.

Outsourcing of call centres, when the new recruits in India / South Africa / Other have no idea how to deal with complex enquiries and refuse to put one through to a manager.

Using fear to sell insurance.

Food manufacturers using deceptive sized boxes, and immoral advertising

This list is endless!

 

[Magicsilence]

The firm itself did not condone it…this ultimately criminal behavior (there were some arrests) was from a select few at the top of local management. (local in NY, and some other big cities) So, it wasn’t a mantra that the industry supports, earning big profits at all costs–it was what I believe to be, pressure to make sales, but also a high level of greed I’m sure, played a masterful part. I think that for me, I look at the firm I work for, as how can I make a difference in my corner of the world? I work with ethical people in my region. I think that every place has its bad seeds (ie: even the RCC has had its share of problems–is the RCC an immoral insitution, absolutely not, but the immoral behavior of many priests, can sometimes taint outsiders’ views of the Church–this is but one example) It wasn’t quite the scandal that happened at Enron, this firm I bring up.

I don’t think that there is any place on the earth, where we could find no greed, no arrogance, no flaws. We work with humans, and as humans, we are flawed, and sin. For some reason, money can make people go a little nuts. LOL:shrug:

Good point. But can we work for a firm which is evidently greedy, arrogant etc… and which intends to use us to that end?

 

[Magicsilence]

I think a better phrase instead of profit maximization, magicsilence, would be…unethical business practices. Reason I say this is that any company would want to maximize its profits. I think the two words don’t fit, if I may be blunt. lol

I absolutely know where you are going with your thread though. Well done…it seems to have sparked some lively conversation, and I for one am in agreement with you. Companies, depending on the industry, take on new tactics to curb such behaviors, because again–people are flawed, and all of the background checks, etc…will not reveal if someone would steal or cheat or whatever from a company. At my firm, it’s called ‘business transparency,’ whereby the client sees everything in writing…everything is spelled out…every fee…every disclosure…everything we earned off of another carrier…it’s all there. Of course, there is a risk to my firm–the client might think we’re making too much, and ask us to decrease our commission. That happens sometimes, so people at first were skiddish. But, it’s the only way to ensure that the bad seeds don’t produce bad fruit! (and hopefully leave because they can’t hack an honest environment) Now, you may not know much about the insurance world…but we get a bad rap.

Sure, it is the unethical business practices which give witness to a distorted focus on profit maximisation.

It is indeed the maximisation of profits at the expense of the common good that is condemned by the Catechism.

However, I am not sure sure it is the company that enforces morality, but the Church. Firms tend towards immorality where possible, so long as it is lawful and increases sales, because the firms aim is to make as much money as possible, and not serve God, or people.

 

[Magicsilence]

I’ve never worked in a business that allowed – let alone, encouraged – cheating. The fact is, too often sharp business practices turn around and bite the business in the butt.

There is, of course, a distinction between immorality that is condemned by customers, and that condemned by the Church.

E.g. Using sex to sell works very well, but is condemned by the Church.

Using unsafe materials in production is condemned by both the Church, and customers.

Firms tend to employ the first method, but the second also appears when the firm thinks it can get away with it.

 

[Magicsilence]

I don’t know how else to put this. You are seriously off track my brother. Nowhere does the Church teach that there is anything wrong with profits in business. I’m afraid you’ve come under the influence of those that teach some false philosophy or are cynical to the point of being deluded. Please, get the Catechism of the Catholic Church and study it. You will find that matters most is what good you can do with the wealth and abundance that God gives you. Accept his gracious and bountiful blessings and use them to His glory! Glorify God and Sanctify your fellow man.

God bless.

Ignatius,

If you re-read my opening post, you will see that my concern is with profit maximisation (at the expense of the common good).

I have quoted the Catechism and backed up my position with it.

I think describing me as ‘deluded’ is a little harsh

 

[Magicsilence]

Oh no… you made the statement - it’s up to you to prove it. Yes - the wording is crude - but even worse… the thought behind it is out of left field. Your assumption is baseless, unless you can prove it.

As Bishop Sheen would say, this is a case of someone with both feet planted firmly in mid-air. Your assumption is groundless, IMO. So, pony up and explain why you think that to be true.

And let us stick to the point and ONLY the point. Digressions are fine in regular discussion, but I think you need to defend your basic supposition or back off from it. I’ve read most of these posts, not all I admit. But I have yet to see a reasoned defense of your starting point.

What would you like a defense of? The assertion that the majority of businesses use immoral means to achieve their goal of maximising shareholder wealth? Or that this is condemned by the Church? Or other? I cannot see how any of these positions are not self evident.

 

[Magicsilence]

Indeed, the business mags are awash with those who took questionable practices and found themselves out of business or out of a job. The free market works, although slowly at times.

Such hostility to business is shocking to me. I work in consulting, and most people are ethical. Of the few that aren’t, I would say that even a portion of those would consider themselves ethical, but our boundaries would be different.

The business world is built on reputations and relationships on all different levels. And it’s a very small world…

I suppose what irks me most is the holier than thou attitude of the OP.

Sheeniac,

I am honestly sorry for coming across as holier-than-thou.

This post seems to indicate that you equate good business practice as in line with the Catholic Faith. Is that a fair conclusion to draw?

 

[Magicsilence]

(continued)

I personally think we have an obligation to provide goods and services that others need in order to live decent lives. But since this is a flawed world, we can’t find an occupation that is without flaw. So, should we let people starve because maybe the top execs of Archer Daniels Midland make an awful lot of money? No. Our purpose in working for ADM is to feed ourselves and others. Working in an agribusiness is not evil in itself even if we feel some people in it might be acting immorally and that perhaps they abuse our work to do it. It is not our intent to enable immorality, but to feed people.

Thank you for the two posts.

If therefore, it is of course true that immorality and greed are present everywhere in the world, how does one decide the level of immorality that is acceptable?

So, working for an abortion clinic is unacceptable because the end is evil.

Yet what about being a condom salesman? Immoral? Working in a supermarket and advising people on condoms - immoral? Stocking condoms in your small shop - immoral?

Working in the production of condoms - immoral?

Working in a luxury store (i.e one which serves the ultra rich, who have no need of the items) - immoral?

Working on a farm that breaks EU law over the conditions of animals - immoral?

Working for an investment bank that looks only to increase customer wealth, at the expense of others - immoral?

But what is really the question here is why any job would cross the line?

 

[vern_humphrey]

In all this holier-than-thou discussion, has anyone considered that if it is immoral to sell, it must be equally immoral to buy?

Those who claim business is immoral must stop supporting businesses by buying their products – they must live on what they can grow, wear what they can weave, and live in houses they build themselves, from scratch. Otherwise, they are in the position of a John condemning the Prostitute while enjoying her services.

 

[whatevergirl]

Good point. But can we work for a firm which is evidently greedy, arrogant etc… and which intends to use us to that end?

Not if that is the firm’s mission statement, no. What is important to note, magic, is that there are cheaters and unethical people in many businesses…should I quit my company because someone in another dept is stealing? Or is telling his employee to do something underhanded? Typically, in large firms, these people are fired…now, if it were promoted or advocated as a company policy to do underhanded things–no, I would not work for that firm.

 

[whatevergirl]

There is, of course, a distinction between immorality that is condemned by customers, and that condemned by the Church.

E.g. Using sex to sell works very well, but is condemned by the Church.

Using unsafe materials in production is condemned by both the Church, and customers.

Firms tend to employ the first method, but the second also appears when the firm thinks it can get away with it.

Well…if you have been following the product liability cases in the news, dealing with China imports–wow, that is horrible! Now, it is an american company’s responsibility to do their ‘due diligence’ to make sure that the goods they are importing, and thus passing off to in many cases, parents who are buying toys for their kids, to make sure that there is no lead or dangerous substances in their products. I have to scratch my head as to how these businesses in the US, didn’t know what they were importing, and kids were getting hurt. There are very loose laws though in China, for example. They don’t have the same quality control as we do here,in America. I think it’s grossly neglectful and downright sinful, actually, to just create products, and sell them to people, lying to them as to how they were made. But, again, not everyone in a particular company knows when wrong doing is being done…often times, until it hits the paper. I believe the CEO of this China company committed suicide…because it is shameful in China to have such a case be brought against you.

 

[Magicsilence]

In all this holier-than-thou discussion, has anyone considered that if it is immoral to sell, it must be equally immoral to buy?

Those who claim business is immoral must stop supporting businesses by buying their products – they must live on what they can grow, wear what they can weave, and live in houses they build themselves, from scratch. Otherwise, they are in the position of a John condemning the Prostitute while enjoying her services.

Yes, and this point was raised earlier.

However, there is a difference; one may need a product (bread, for example) out of necessity, but one usually has more choice with regard to job choice.

Our social and economic structure means it is very very difficult to purchase products that are moral in focus; but this thread is asking whether or not the problem extends to job choice.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you for the two posts.

If therefore, it is of course true that immorality and greed are present everywhere in the world, how does one decide the level of immorality that is acceptable?

Yet what about being a condom salesman? Immoral? Working in a supermarket and advising people on condoms - immoral? Stocking condoms in your small shop - immoral?

Working in the production of condoms - immoral?

Working in a luxury store (i.e one which serves the ultra rich, who have no need of the items) - immoral?

Working on a farm that breaks EU law over the conditions of animals - immoral?

Working for an investment bank that looks only to increase customer wealth, at the expense of others - immoral?

But what is really the question here is why any job would cross the line?

The easiest line to draw is between those things that are intrinsically immoral in their purpose and those which are not, but which may be turned to immoral ends, incidentally.

The applications, however, are not so easy. The condom example is probably one that is immoral, although people use condoms for lots of purposes other than their intended use. I know of people who buy them in order to protect hydraulic connectors from the weather, for example. Balloons aren’t strong enough, and plastic bags come off in the wind.

I don’t know what the EU requirements for animal conditions are, so I can’t comment on that. However, having some experience with the EU requirements that pet food be human-consumable, I have to wonder about the reasonableness or moral imperative of anything else they require. But in any event, raising animals for food is not, in itself, immoral. You would have to know a lot about the conditions of animals in the growing facilities and the fate of animals otherwise in order to be able to make any kind of judgment concerning that. Most of the conditions people think are cruel actually aren’t. All they know about them is what some animal activist says about them. I am very familiar with lots of different animal facilities and have been in a lot of them, and most of them are pretty benign.

It does not bother me at all that rich people buy products that other people who are not so rich, make for them. If, by making some luxury item, working people can separate some superwealthy person from some of his/her money, I’m A-okay with that. Would it be better if the rich person just hoarded the wealth?
Besides, what if some working stiff scrapes and saves to buy some super-luxury item for his wife on their 50th anniversary because he loves her? You can’t know who buys those things or why they do.

Investment banks also aid in job creation and the creation of consumer products, and do a lot of it. Again, so what if it makes somebody rich in the process? The investment banker’s moral imperatives regarding his own wealth are his problem, not mine.
My concern is the job creation and the product and service production. If consumers didn’t want what the investment bankers help create, the investment bankers would all go broke. And there is no reason to believe that the creation and expansion of businesses hurts others necessarily. The economy is not a “zero sum game”. One person’s getting rich does not necessarily require that another be made poor. Usually, as they say, “a rising tide raises all boats.” But certainly, some investment groups can be destructive. I think most people could tell the difference going in.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, and this point was raised earlier.

However, there is a difference; one may need a product (bread, for example) out of necessity, but one usually has more choice with regard to job choice.

In other words, it is wrong to purchase the services of a prostitute unless you’re really, really hard up?

Do you not see that your fundamental position is flawed? You do have choices in regard to job choice – you understood that instinctively when you threw in the caviet “one usually has more choice.”

Our social and economic structure means it is very very difficult to purchase products that are moral in focus;

What? You can’t raise your own wheat and bake your own bread? Your ancestors did. They grew the flax, cotton, or wool, spun their own thread, wove their own garments, too.

but this thread is asking whether or not the problem extends to job choice.

And the answer – given over and over by people with much more experience and background than yourself – is that the question is flawed. It assumes as true something that is not so.

 

[whatevergirl]

***QUOTE=vern humphrey;3058841]In other words, it is wrong to purchase the services of a prostitute unless you’re really, really hard up?

Do you not see that your fundamental position is flawed? You do** have choices in regard to job choice – you understood that instinctively when you threw in the caviet “one usually has more choice.”*

vern! lol Clearly, he meant necessities. (IE FOOD!)

 

[vern_humphrey]

***QUOTE=vern humphrey;3058841]In other words, it is wrong to purchase the services of a prostitute unless you’re really, really hard up?

Do you not see that your fundamental position is flawed? You do*** have choices in regard to job choice – you understood that instinctively when you threw in the caviet “one usually has more choice.”

vern! lol Clearly, he meant necessities. (IE FOOD!)

How is store-bought bread a “necessity” when you can bake your own?

And since you can bake your own, how is choosing to buy bread any more of a “necessity” than buying sexual gratification?

The point stands – if it is a sin to sell, it is a sin to buy. And merely saying, “I would be greatly inconvenienced if I had to bake my own bread (or marry that person)” doesn’t excuse the supposed sin.

It must follow, then, that anyone who sincerely believes selling is a sin must abstain from buying. And since none of us will abstain from buying, then clearly none of us sincerely believe selling is a sin.

 

[whatevergirl]

How is store-bought bread a “necessity” when you can bake your own?

And since you can bake your own, how is choosing to buy bread any more of a “necessity” than buying sexual gratification?

The point stands – if it is a sin to sell, it is a sin to buy. And merely saying, “I would be greatly inconvenienced if I had to bake my own bread (or marry that person)” doesn’t excuse the supposed sin.

It must follow, then, that anyone who sincerely believes selling is a sin must abstain from buying. And since none of us will abstain from buying, then clearly none of us sincerely believe selling is a sin.

I don’t think magicsilence is saying that at all. The point of the thread, I thought, was to say that businesses these days will stoop to unethical practices (not illegal) to making their bottom line–and often, the bottom line is to raise someone’s stock a point who sits at the top. I’m assuming that MS’s stance on maximizing profits has to do with a company’s bottom line exceeding a necessary line of profiting. (ie my stock example) MS isn’t saying that it’s a sin to buy products…I mean, doesn’t that sound absurd? MS is saying that it is sinful to maximize profits if people are either a) having to sin in the process to get there and/or b) causing harm to others.

Anyways, perhaps you see a different angle with the thread, but that is my take.

 

[Magicsilence]

In other words, it is wrong to purchase the services of a prostitute unless you’re really, really hard up?

I’m not sure what relevance this has to my point. When has sexual gratification ever been an intrinsic human need? It might be on Maslow’s hierarchy, but it is not a need that must be fulfilled at all costs.

On the other hand, eating IS a requirement for sustenance, so your comparison is not quite accurate.

Do you not see that your fundamental position is flawed? You do have choices in regard to job choice – you understood that instinctively when you threw in the caviet “one usually has more choice.”

Indeed. This is the point.

What? You can’t raise your own wheat and bake your own bread? Your ancestors did. They grew the flax, cotton, or wool, spun their own thread, wove their own garments, too.

In the sunny old U.S of A, perhaps this is possible, along with physical land space to do it with. In central London, its not quite so easy.

And the answer – given over and over by people with much more experience and background than yourself – is that the question is flawed. It assumes as true something that is not so.

Namely?