Posted on 05/27/2009 11:05:43 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Caterpillar, the heavy equipment manufacturer, is moving to lay off more than 20,000 workers. These days such mass layoffs are sadly unsurprising, but are they ethical?
If Caterpillar is to relegate legions of employees to the care of the public, it may not simply echo Ebenezer Scrooge: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Is there no COBRA?” Instead, it must use its considerable political clout to ensure that those programs are robustly funded, hardly a priority either for Caterpillar or its confreres among the Fortune 500. That is, if Caterpillar is to deprive thousands of people of a livelihood, it must either provide for their basic needs or see that the public can do so. To do neither is to dodge a moral obligation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Where does one even begin to discuss such an article? The underlying assumptions about economics, personal responsibility, etc are so muddled and addled, that it essentially impossible to start the corrective process.
Good grief!
The only reason to read this idiots column is that he is always wrong. Always.
If you ever want to know the ethical position on anything, see what this idiot has to say about it, and the ethical position is the exact polar opposite.
I bet if you even whispered to this guy that abortion is morally wrong, he’d start screaming about “imposing your morality on the rest of us.”
The irony would be completely lost on him.
My question for this guy of course is: Was it ethical for the ONE to say back in February that if his stimulus was passed that it would save 20K CAT jobs.
The NYT can suck it.
“Making a profit in and of itself IS the “greater good.””
Making a profit is the byproduct - albeit, an important one. The greater good is to work in a manner that pleases God by doing business in a fair and honest manner that is a credit to you and a benefit to society.
*********************
“Do you understand how business profits benefit nearly everyone in society, even the non-owners?”
If you detach profitability from moral obligation you would have to conclude that any profitable business endevour is good for society. Pornography, the drug trade, prostitution - all highly profitable, yet they morally undermine society.
*******************
“Without profits, businesses have no reason to exist.”
The protestant work ethic would insist that the reason for any business is to please God - both on an individual and corporate level.
I know this sounds strange, but this is the very basis for a free market. In a similar way, personal ethics is the basis of a free society. When personal ethics disappear, the free society will soon disappear also.
John Adams put it very clearly: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
The same applies to the free market.
He did say that, did’nt he?
I haven't read anything from this guy for a few years now - ever since I canceled my Fresno Bee subscription - and you are completely correct! He is almost always wrong. And on the very few occasions when he lurches into the correct position it is for the completely wrong reason. I read his column for humor.
ahhh but the let has no morality.
This is only “ethics” and ethics can be molded as needed.
What about the duty to the shareholders? the owners?
What about the duty to those who can keep their jobs?
How about, ala recent Disney firings which were eliminating duplicate positions, using this time to self examine if positions are really needed for some profitable purpose?
This NYT person is confusing business with a left wing make work project. (see “Atlas Shrugged”)
How come the NYT isn’t complaining about Government Motors laying off folks? Remember the old GM?
It seems to me that you are confusing the terms "work" and "business".
A farmer can work hard all year long and create abundance for his family without being in business at all.
Being in business means to involve others in a transaction in which each party to the transaction gives up something of value to the other. For their own reasons, each party to the transaction believes that they are enriched by engaging in the transaction.
"Profit" is simply a measure of whether the "work" one is doing is sufficiently valued by others to justify doing the work.
A farmer who attempts to engage in the agricultural business without using fertilizer on his fields, for example, may find that he is not profitable. He may work just as hard as others and may be just as worthy in God's eyes, but his lack of profitability can be attributed to doing the wrong things.
If such a farmer wishes to continue in business, then he needs to adapt to what the marketplace demands.
If, instead of unwise use of his fields, the farmer engages in unwise use of labor, the same principles will apply. The farmer must adjust to the marketplace, perhaps by laying off workers, if he is not profitable. I can't see how a "work ethic" enters into this.
You spelled "socialist" wrong...
Just saying.
Please tell me you're kidding!
And this jerk still has a job?
Reasonable people can disagree as to the foundations of the free market, but...
I categorically reject that particular definition.
I'll have to re-read the Wealth of Nations to be absolutely sure, but I am confident that neither protestantism nor any other religion played (or should play) a role in the secular foundation of rewards proportionate to the effort put out by each individual without government or church interference; assuming, of course, that we are circumscribed by the social contract, including the definitions of classic crimes against other individuals.
“The comments under this article are quite disturbing indeed.”
Yes, they are. Most of them obviously by Obama voters and products of years of public-school and MSM indoctrination. And I bet none of them runs a business with employees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.