an ethical theory

[moralist]

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on this ethical theory, as to whether or not in your own experience it has validity:

"Other people will treat you as decently as you are, and even if they are not, they will treat you as if they were."

[Reidy]

I don't quite understand it. In any case, a single statement is at most an assertion, not a theory. The latter requires appropriate evidence and argumentation.

[moralist]

I don't quite understand it.

If you can describe what you don't understand, I'll be happy to clarify the idea.

In any case, a single statement is at most an assertion, not a theory. The latter requires appropriate evidence and argumentation.

You're right. An unfounded conclusion may be a more accurate descriptor, as the only evidence I have is anecdotal observation from decades of doing business. And rather than arguing the case as if that would convince others, I was more interested anyone here either found it to hold true as I did, or if their own experience proved to them that it is false.

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on this ethical theory, as to whether or not in your own experience it has validity:

"Other people will treat you as decently as you are, and even if they are not, they will treat you as if they were."

This looks like an attempt at defining moral reciprocity, but the wording is peculiar. I read this as, "Other people will treat you as you treat them", which might be derived from, "Treat others as you would have them treat you."

[moralist]

This looks like an attempt at defining moral reciprocity, but the wording is peculiar.

Yes it is. And I used the term decency to steer the idea more towards a business setting.

For example consider the Madhoff incident. The indecency of needing to feel safe and secure combined with the greed of wanting an unrealistic rate of return on investment made people perfectly matched prey to the opportunistic expressions of Madhoff's predatory nature. Or in short...

"The fish always matches the bait."

I read this as, "Other people will treat you as you treat them", which might be derived from, "Treat others as you would have them treat you."

While that's excellent advice to live by, I was focusing more on the idea that it is people's own predatory greedy nature that renders them the prey of their own kind. That for a swindle to take place, there first needs to be matching indecency in both the cheater and the cheated.

There is talk that Capitalism has failed, when it is only the failure of people who don't live up to the ethical code of behavior which is absolutely necessary for Capitalism to work.

Edited November 29, 2012 by moralist

[Devil's Advocate]

The fish always matches the bait...

... for a swindle to take place, there first needs to be matching indecency in both the cheater and the cheated.

"You can't cheat an honest man" ~ W. C. Fields

There is talk that Capitalism has failed, when it is only the failure of people who don't live up to the ethical code of behavior which is absolutely necessary for Capitalism to work.

The fairest system of trade I've experienced is barter amongst neighbors. Capitalism can't begin to succeed as a system of trade until it's allowed to be practiced independently of government players constantly trying to level the field and redistribute the wealth. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon...

[oso]

Maybe you could attempt to build a theory or reasoning behind your idea. The best I could say about it is, sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. I think any half-decent person will either recognize goodness, or at least be persuaded by an air of good will, and treat a good person well, but there are also people who are immune to any good will or decency.

Also, I have to take issue with this comment: "There is talk that Capitalism has failed, when it is only the failure of people who don't live up to the ethical code of behavior which is absolutely necessary for Capitalism to work."

Capitalism hasn't failed, not because people under a capitalist system weren't good enough, but because capitalism doesn't exist. If your statement was correct, it would imply that capitalism is not the right system for the American people, who are too flawed to make it work. It reminds me of Atlas Shrugged, where the 20th Century Motor Company owners proclaim their disaster a noble experiment but that people were too corrupt to make it work.

[moralist]

"You can't cheat an honest man" ~ W. C. Fields

Exactly... and conversely...

"The easiest man to con is a con man."

The fairest system of trade I've experienced is barter amongst neighbors.

Yes. That's truly beautiful in its goodwill when the trustworthy uphold the trust of others.

Capitalism can't begin to succeed as a system of trade until it's allowed to be practiced independently of government players constantly trying to level the field and redistribute the wealth.

Capitalism does succeed on an individual level, because people's behavior is similar to electrons, in that the less there are the less likely their actions can be predicted. Whereas mobs of people are easily controlled because their actions are highly predictable and intentions are telegraphed long before they come to expression.

Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon...

On a macro scale, you are correct... but on a micro personal level, Capitalism is alive and well.

Edited November 30, 2012 by moralist

[moralist]

Maybe you could attempt to build a theory or reasoning behind your idea.

I'm not very good at that as all I have is anecdotal personal experience. And my aim is not to try to intellectually convince others, but rather to see if anyone else finds that it rings true from their own experience. From my own "forensic" observations of business transactions both my own as well as those of others, I've yet to see a violation.

The best I could say about it is, sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. I think any half-decent person will either recognize goodness, or at least be persuaded by an air of good will, and treat a good person well, but there are also people who are immune to any good will or decency.

...and they have their own kind with whom they deserve to do business.

Also, I have to take issue with this comment: "There is talk that Capitalism has failed, when it is only the failure of people who don't live up to the ethical code of behavior which is absolutely necessary for Capitalism to work."

Capitalism hasn't failed, not because people under a capitalist system weren't good enough, but because capitalism doesn't exist. If your statement was correct, it would imply that capitalism is not the right system for the American people, who are too flawed to make it work.

Capitalism does call up the best in us to make it work, and its success is proportional to our own aspirations toward the horizon of it's ideals. And those for whom Capitalism does not work are not Americans in the first place, because it is uniquely an American value.

Capitalism has become supplanted by an antithetical system which I call Creditism. Under this system, debt is fradulently regarded to be money, when in reality it is only the lack of money. This is an unsustainable system because it is not reality based. Economic depressions are the inevitable return to reality of capital.

It reminds me of Atlas Shrugged, where the 20th Century Motor Company owners proclaim their disaster a noble experiment but that people were too corrupt to make it work.

While many people may be too corrupt to be deserving of enjoying the rewards of Capitalism, that fact does not prevent Americans from rightfully harvesting the fruits of their own honest.labors. For each finds their own kind.

I see Capitalism as resting upon these 5 pillars:

Decency

Responsibility

Productivity

Solvency

Frugality

Take any one pillar away... and it topples.

Edited November 30, 2012 by moralist

[Devil's Advocate]

I like the idea of considering capitalism in the context of moral reciprocity, as your opening statement implies. One of the reasons I think barter (or micro capitalism, if you will) works well among neighbors, is that neighbors are personally invested in each other, i.e. they have some sense of who they're trading with, and some incentive to maintain good will. Trading nationally (or macro capitalism) operates largely among strangers and introduces government as a 3rd partner (another stranger), which I believe makes it easier to trade in a manner that people without integrity think they can get away with. I guess what I'm trying to express is, micro-cap operates as "us trading with us", and macro-cap as "us trading with them".

Capitalism amongst neighbors produces decent trades because we see ourselves in our trading partners and are more inclined to trade as we would be traded with. Capitalism amongst strangers allows indecent trades because there's a sense "us vs them" that suggests (incorrectly) that its OK to trade with others differently than how we'd trade amongst ourselves. I'll give it some more thought over the weekend, and check back later to see how this thread proceeds.

[moralist]

I like the idea of considering capitalism in the context of moral reciprocity, as your opening statement implies. One of the reasons I think barter (or micro capitalism, if you will) works well among neighbors, is that neighbors are personally invested in each other, i.e. they have some sense of who they're trading with, and some incentive to maintain good will.

The smaller and more personal the business interaction, the greater the requirement to cultivate good will, because the consequences of failing to do so are swift and sure. I do business primarily in a small local community, and earning a good reputation is literally worth it's weight in gold. In fact, I view Capitalism as an artform where beautiful moral ideals can be freely expressed in useful practical forms.

Trading nationally (or macro capitalism) operates largely among strangers and introduces government as a 3rd partner (another stranger), which I believe makes it easier to trade in a manner that people without integrity think they can get away with.

The existence of that darkness you described only makes those with integrity shine even more. Each seeks out its own kind with whom to do business, and each kind knows which is which.

You hit upon another principle when you mentioned a third partner. There is a system which operates in America which I call the third party payer system. It is antithetical to Capitalism. It can be identified whenever the cost of goods and services received are not paid directly by the end user, but are paid for by third parties, with their payment being processed through bureaucracies. The third party payer system has infested the sectors of: Government, Credit, Insurance, Debt, Education, Law, Healthcare, Unions, and the Arts.

I guess what I'm trying to express is, micro-cap operates as "us trading with us", and macro-cap as "us trading with them".

Capitalism amongst neighbors produces decent trades because we see ourselves in our trading partners and are more inclined to trade as we would be traded with. Capitalism amongst strangers allows indecent trades because there's a sense "us vs them" that suggests (incorrectly) that its OK to trade with others differently than how we'd trade amongst ourselves.

So the proper approach is to avoid trading with "them". This selective process unfolds naturally on its own as each person refines their own life.

I'll give it some more thought over the weekend, and check back later to see how this thread proceeds.

Ok.

Edited November 30, 2012 by moralist