Reflections on Greed, Corruption, and Immorality

[prof]

.
 
Dictionaries tell me that greed =df.= excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.  It’s an avid desire for gain or wealth.
 
They further inform that corruption =df.= dishonest proceedings; impairment of integrity; inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery); moral perversion; debasement; dissolution; foulness.
 
We know empirically that greed can lead to corruption, and also that corruption can result in greed.  Each can be the cause of the other.
 
Hence I am wondering if there is a high correlation between them – or just what is the relation, if any??

I also am interested in learning more about the concept:  How does immorality arise?

I noticed a discussion of this in M.C. Katz, Ethical Explorations, on p. 24. 
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf
Rather than expecting anyone to click on the link, I shall quote the text here:

We irrationally  try to make an exception to some
moral rule, some ethical principle, on behalf of some
perceived short-term self-interest.  This makes as much
sense as driving on the wrong side of the street in traffic.

We know on one side of our brain that we may get smashed up – that is one belief we hold – but another side of our mind, another thing we tell ourselves is: “You’ll get away with it. It’s a gamble, but go ahead and bet that you will slip by!”
 
Then we listen to that last self-sentence and commit an act we
consciously (or subconsciously) know is immoral. Even though the first belief – the one about the fact that we are heading for a crash -- has justification in the real world, and thus is rational to believe, we play the tape with the volume up higher repeating the second unfounded belief over and over to our-self. It wins out and immorality results.
 
It rarely if ever occurs to us to ask: Is it possible that my perception could be wrong? Should I maybe change my conceptions and perceptions?
 

Do any of you have thoughts on these matters?

I would like to imbed the three concepts (in the topic title) into a larger framework.  I need your help on this project.
 
Please respond.

[Walker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdIev12fCPs

These labels of behavior and intent can only be made in comparison to a measure. There are two measures. One measure is the arbitrary set of laws created by a society. These labels are then measured against those laws. The second measure is life. So with two measures for each label, one person can say that aborting a fetus is a moral act because it is sanctioned by law, and another person using life as the measure can say that it is an immoral act. Sometimes the measures mesh, sometimes they contradict one another. For instance, with life as the measure (rather than time or efficiency) the speed limit for driving should be 1 mph since that speed greatly increases the odds of living through an auto journey, if the destination isn’t too far away. If it is, use the high speed lane, 1.5 mph, but you must sign a waiver.

With economy and enjoyment as the measure you end up with grandpa’s workshop where it takes a long time to build a perfect piece of furniture. With economy and greed as the measure you get a commercial shop and less timeless quality in the product. A violation of the rules and laws that govern each situation could be considered immoral. For instance, in grandpa's workshop any action not motived by love is immoral for it defeats the purpose of the act, and the finished workshop product is merely a by-product of the unsullied intent. A commercial shop runs on piece count, though Chippendale likely didn't run a sweat shop and if Rodin did, it sure worked out for his estate.

[prof]

.
Let's say that being in balance is an ideal condition for a human being.

Then violating that ideal - being unbalanced - would be a moral mistake.

Modern Virtue Theory recommends avoiding excesses and deficits; instead: find the Golden Mean in life. Be prudential. Do you have any reason to believe that greed leads to vice? By 'vice' I mean overdoing or under-doing.
Is there any practical way to measure this?

Greed may lead to accepting bribes, which in turn could make one corrupt. Corruption is a form of immorality. Someone who wants to be a person of good character would avoid this condition.

Is the one who offers bribes equally unethical?

Is offering a bribe like giving a waiter a tip for service, only doing it in advance of the service?

[Walker]

.
Let's say that being in balance is an ideal condition for a human being.

Then violating that ideal - being unbalanced - would be a moral mistake.

Modern Virtue Theory recommends avoiding excesses and deficits; instead: find the Golden Mean in life. Be prudential. Do you have any reason to believe that greed leads to vice? By 'vice' I mean overdoing or under-doing.
Is there any practical way to measure this?

Greed may lead to accepting bribes, which in turn could make one corrupt. Corruption is a form of immorality. Someone who wants to be a person of good character would avoid this condition.

Is the one who offers bribes equally unethical?

Is offering a bribe like giving a waiter a tip for service, only doing it in advance of the service?

Hey prof. Now you’re getting to it. You’re using balance in the figurative sense of well-adjusted. However taken literally, balance is when motive forces neutralize each other resulting in stasis, or no motion. So any movement is a movement to balance but once balance is found, and until that balance is subject to an unbalancing force causing motion, stillness is the result. When motion begins from the motionless and balanced position then the subsequent movement will be closer in alignment with the intent that initiated the movement, if attention is not distracted. This is why you pause into stillness a moment before leaping across the chasm. That’s a motion you want to align with intent as perfectly as you can manage. With death on the line the body instinctively stills. Deer in the headlights. When motion begins from another motion that was set into motion as a movement to balance, as a variation of the prior motion, then the beginning motion has a lesser probability of transcending time to become the manifestation of intent, though a practiced master who has transcended rehearsal tilts the outcome towards inevitability.

For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA2EnemzBpk

A bribe is an act that breaks the rules. A private contractor who pays one of his private suppliers a commission to steer referrals his way is not bribing (unless it’s done with a clerk and not the owner), though it does suggest a biased endorsement of the private contractor that will put the supplier in disfavor with other of its customers and in partnership with another company. The responsible owner is likely cognizant of partnership pitfalls. A non-owner clerk or other employee taking money away from the owner, as an unauthorized representative of the owner in this capacity of making unauthorized endorsements, would in ethical fact be taking bribes. However in this scenario if the contractor or the supplier is the government, that’s also bribery due to the misuse of public funds, since ethically the contract goes to the lowest responsible bid.

[prof]

.
Let's say that being in balance is an ideal condition for a human being.

Then violating that ideal - being unbalanced - would be a moral mistake....

Greed [avroriciousness) may lead to accepting bribes, which in turn could make one corrupt. Corruption is a form of immorality. Someone who wants to be a person of good character would avoid this condition.
Is the one who offers bribes equally unethical?

Hey prof. Now you’re getting to it. You’re using balance in the figurative sense of well-adjusted. However taken literally, balance is.. .

Greetings, Walker

Thank you for responding.

Let's not take it "literally," that is, let's not take it in the Physics sense, here..

Being in balance, ethically speaking, is more than just being well-adjusted. It suggests that one knows himself [herself], accepts himself as he is, creates himself, and gives (of) himself [or herself.}

It further suggests what I have called "morality," , i.e., integrity, authenticity, empathy, compassion, kindness, and good character.

It also means being prudent: neither over-valuing nor under-valuing various traits and features of human life and existence... but rather seeing values in their prper perspective, giving the Intrinsic values priority over the Extrinsic values, and the Extrinsic values being ranked higher by the individual than the Systemic values. Such an individual knows "which way is up," and will tend to lead a balanced life.

Sometimes, treasuring Intrinsic-values will result in a display of Moral Courage - such as we see in the conduct of a corporate whistle-blower.


p.s. I recommend this documentary to everyone:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... nvade+next

Also, see the entire move here: http://stream.youtubermovie.com/play.php?movie=4897822

This is the best work Michael Moore has ever done and is important for Americans to view it.


Your comments ........?

[Walker]

.
Let's say that being in balance is an ideal condition for a human being.

Then violating that ideal - being unbalanced - would be a moral mistake....

Greed [avroriciousness) may lead to accepting bribes, which in turn could make one corrupt. Corruption is a form of immorality. Someone who wants to be a person of good character would avoid this condition.
Is the one who offers bribes equally unethical?

Hey prof. Now you’re getting to it. You’re using balance in the figurative sense of well-adjusted. However taken literally, balance is.. .

Greetings, Walker

Thank you for responding.

Let's not take it "literally," that is, let's not take it in the Physics sense, here..

Being in balance, ethically speaking, is more than just being well-adjusted. It suggests that one knows himself [herself], accepts himself as he is, creates himself, and gives (of) himself [or herself.}

It further suggests what I have called "morality," , i.e., integrity, authenticity, empathy, compassion, kindness, and good character.

It also means being prudent: neither over-valuing nor under-valuing various traits and features of human life and existence... but rather seeing values in their prper perspective, giving the Intrinsic values priority over the Extrinsic values, and the Extrinsic values being ranked higher by the individual than the Systemic values. Such an individual knows "which way is up," and will tend to lead a balanced life.

Sometimes, treasuring Intrinsic-values will result in a display of Moral Courage - such as we see in the conduct of a corporate whistle-blower.

p.s. I recommend this documentary to everyone:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... nvade+next

Hello prof. I think literal meaning offers a greater depth of understanding through actual meaning, whereas figurative meaning hinges solely on the meaning implied by the writer, and the reader either enters into the conspiracy or not.

Whistle blowing is itself a corporation, kick-started into U.S. consciousness by Watergate/Nixon, in which the objective is not ostensible systemic improvement but rather, just tear it down. Often tear it down for the sake of tearing it down. It's the paradigm. Tear it down is violent and dramatic, crusader stuff. The sexy hero gets to tear it down ... in his own dreams Moore is the sexy hero. Improvement is boring, tedious committee meetings, compromise, long-haul yawning.

Whistle-blowing Corporation Moore is into nothing more than Moore and more for Moore.

Over and above whatever definitions of extrinsic, intrinsic, and systemic values you may intend, did you really mean to say that the individual who ranks extrinsic values higher than intrinsic values, and yet gives intrinsic values priority over extrinsic values, knows which way is up?

[prof]

.
A wise person once said the following, and I am inclined to agree:

Being ‘good’, or living well, is all about balance. Balance between reason and emotion, and between your needs and those of others, and between pragmatism and ‘the perfect solution’.


What say you?

[prof]

...Speaking of greed.......

I came upon this marvelous quotation from Thom Hartmann:

If you hoard newspapers, people feel sorry for you; if you hoard money, they put you on the front cover of People Magazine

Yet is is the same mental problem (in both cases.)

If greed isn't a mental disorder, is it what makes squirrels bury their nuts? Is it largely hormonal?

What say you?


Some further reflections....

George Gilder, in his role as an Economist, offered this analysis:

Wealth = Knowledge

Growth = Learning

Money = Time.

[Time is the one commodity that will always be scarce, when all else is abundant. Money buys you time, he claims. Perhaps he means the more money you have the earlier you can go into retirement, and thus have plenty of leisure time. Actually, it turns out that when responsible people, those of good character, go into retirement, they have less time than ever, because they are so busy helping people, or doing something to make the world a better place.]


.......something to think about.

[Walker]

… make the world a better place …

The do-gooder is trying to do something. To make the world a better place.

The ethical intent of ahimsa is to not do something. To not harm.

Different focus.

With ahimsa, attention shifts away from the Hero making the world a better place.

Now honestly, did you ever think about that?

[prof]

Hi, Walker

I thought about that since I was 18, when I and was inspired by M.K. Gandhi, who was still alive then; and I also occasionally attended services at an ashram. {The services were conducted, in a clearing in the woods, outside of Chicopee, Mass. by Srimati Gayatri Devi, a very focused lady. The over-riding philosophy there was Vedanta, a hindu universalism. I learned abut Ashoka, and Buddha, and Jesus - since the people thee were disciples of Sri Ramakrishna, who claimed to have been intensely inspired by each of those holy figures.}

India for many years, until relatively recently, had an ethic of resignation, since the caste system was so rigid, and life seemed so stagnant for so many.

Gandhi, in contrast, advocated and implemented nonviolent direct action [satyagraha} which is action-oriented. He was not resigned to conditions as they were - for centuries (of occupation by the British Empire.) Now the U.S.A. is maintaining an empire; and like all of the previous ones, it too will fall some day.

So, yes, I believe in nonviolence, and live by it. and as you know (or should know by now) in my Ethics the first deduction from the axiom is: Do no harm

The axiom defines what Ethics is. As you recall, it's a perspective, or way of viewing, individuals.

See BASIC ETHICS http://bg.ht/nLJfi

A.so check out LIVING THE GOOD LIFE http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf

[Dalek Prime]

… make the world a better place …

The do-gooder is trying to do something. To make the world a better place.

The ethical intent of ahimsa is to not do something. To not harm.

Different focus.

With ahimsa, attention shifts away from the Hero making the world a better place.

Now honestly, did you ever think about that?

Here's where we actually agree Walker, in part; doing no harm. (And when one creates a new consciousness, one is introducing harm to something which otherwise would never have experienced harm, and is therefore unethical.)

Note this harm is introduced by, what parents would say, an 'act of love', aka nonviolently. People tend to forget that harm can be introduced by acts which they automatically accept as benign.

On a seppate note, it just occurred to me that Buddhists and Christians see 'intent' quite differently. The Buddda was all about good intent, while the old saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' is a Western concept. Just an observation.

[Walker]

Hi, Walker

I thought about that since I was 18, when I and was inspired by M.K. Gandhi, who was still alive then; and I also occasionally attended services at an ashram. {The services were conducted, in a clearing in the woods, outside of Chicopee, Mass. by Srimati Gayatri Devi, a very focused lady. The over-riding philosophy there was Vedanta, a hindu universalism. I learned abut Ashoka, and Buddha, and Jesus - since the people thee were disciples of Sri Ramakrishna, who claimed to have been intensely inspired by each of those holy figures.}

India for many years, until relatively recently, had an ethic of resignation, since the caste system was so rigid, and life seemed so stagnant for so many.

Gandhi, in contrast, advocated and implemented nonviolent direct action [satyagraha} which is action-oriented. He was not resigned to conditions as they were - for centuries (of occupation by the British Empire.) Now the U.S.A. is maintaining an empire; and like all of the previous ones, it too will fall some day.

So, yes, I believe in nonviolence, and live by it. and as you know (or should know by now) in my Ethics the first deduction from the axiom is: Do no harm

The axiom defines what Ethics is. As you recall, it's a perspective, or way of viewing, individuals.

See BASIC ETHICS http://bg.ht/nLJfi

A.so check out LIVING THE GOOD LIFE http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf

I suspected as much. Ahimsa frees attention to follow self-interest and attunes attention to when doing nothing causes more harm than doing what one thinks is good, though within a situation what’s good and what’s harmful is less murky with ahimsa.

[Walker]

… make the world a better place …

The do-gooder is trying to do something. To make the world a better place.

The ethical intent of ahimsa is to not do something. To not harm.

Different focus.

With ahimsa, attention shifts away from the Hero making the world a better place.

Now honestly, did you ever think about that?

Here's where we actually agree Walker, in part; doing no harm. (And when one creates a new consciousness, one is introducing harm to something which otherwise would never have experienced harm, and is therefore unethical.)

Note this harm is introduced by, what parents would say, an 'act of love', aka nonviolently. People tend to forget that harm can be introduced by acts which they automatically accept as benign.

On a seppate note, it just occurred to me that Buddhists and Christians see 'intent' quite differently. The Buddda was all about good intent, while the old saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' is a Western concept. Just an observation.

To never experience another's harmful intent is doing nothing on steroids, and is that really a benefit to anyone else?

[Dalek Prime]

One's creation is not supposed to benefit anyone else. It's supposed to benefit the created. And as harm is introduced (birth being the sine qua non of harm), clearly it breaks with this ethic. What's the point of ethics if we just ignore them when it doesn't suit us?

And just to mention, your steroid comparison is incorrect. Not creating is not akin to taking steroids and doing nothing with it, (as, in a sense, bodybuilders do). It's more akin to having children, and neglecting them.

[Walker]

One's creation is not supposed to benefit anyone else.

Sure it is. One’s birth is for the purpose of benefit to the species. Do you assume to declare what is beneficial to the species? You one of them social engineers?

And just to mention, your steroid comparison is incorrect. Not creating is not akin to taking steroids and doing nothing with it, (as, in a sense, bodybuilders do). It's more akin to having children, and neglecting them.

Really. Then allow me to clarify the phrasing. To do nothing on steroids means to do nothing in the extreme, which is the result of non-existence.