[feralimal]

"I was right technically, businesswise, and morally."

... and in third place, morality. And now lost in the distance.

I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone:

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?"

[techbio]

If you interpret a grammar (in this case, a list of dimensions for evaluating one's choices) in the terms of another grammar (in your interpretation, the ranking order of horse race or other competition) you impose a structure on the conclusion and what logically follows, that is orthogonal or irrelevant to the original statement.

There is no reason I see that placing morals last in that list places it below the technical or business dimensions, and assuming good intentions would seem to require that they were ordered that way because morality is in fact the bottom line or last word, rather than tacked on as some also ran, in itself requiring technical and business success to be actualized, while in fact standing as the higher goal.

The most charitably I can view your response is that you discount technique and business due to some prevalence of corruption in them but do not likewise discount moralism.

What shall it profit a man to lose the whole world? Immorality itself often follows failures to thrive, ie cheating to get an edge in one way or another.

[moksly]

There is an old punk saying. The guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to.

[coldtea]

>"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?

It will profit them, well, the whole world. Duh!

(Yeah, I know what the Christian sentiment means. But it requires the belief, if not in soul, in some trancedental good, for people to care about "loss of soul" over "gaining the world". Which, alas, we don't have as much...)

[sojournerc]

There's a secular interpretation too.

What good is all the money in the world if you don't respect/ recognize yourself after you get it.

[coldtea]

Well, there's the even more secural interpretation "who said I don't respect/recognize myself? Those 'morals' are just ideals and don't exist, meanwhile I have the world".

[loveistheanswer]

That would be a great rationalization for a narcissist to use while wreaking havok on other people's lives with no remorse.

[AwaAwa]

I think that was the point of the 'more' secular interpretation?

[greenonions]

That's not an interpretation, that's just pointing out that people who do not have a strong conception of themselves or have self-imposed limits on their behavior according to their moral system have no reason not to blindly pursue enhancing their material wealth.

[8note]

They don't have a reason to pursue that material wealth either

[coldtea]

How so? Material wealth gives all kinds of tangible benefits as control, pleasure, influence, access, etc -- even better health and surely better healthcare.

Whereas, what does being moral/good give (to the invididual practicing it, not to the community) except a feel-good feeling (and that only on those who care for it)?

(I'm in favor of being moral, just point their point of view).

[Clubber]

>But it requires the belief, if not in soul, in some trancedental good

The soul is your conscience, you're comfortability with yourself. The judge is your peers, family and ultimately yourself.

[coldtea]

Well, the soul (as in "ultimately yourself") might not give a fuck about morality and goodness, and judge you on failing or not to get what you want. What then?

As for family and friends, people find that those like you just fine if:

(a) you can fake being good succesfully (while still being bad and doing bad things for your benefit - common with politicians, CEO doing "charity" with corruption and cruelty on the side, etc.)

(b) you win material wealth and so they depend on kissing your ass

(c) they are actually treated well and kindly by you (while you're still fine to fuck over everybody else for profit - king of like in mob - their families don't dislike them because they're mobs)

[shoemakersteve]

>What then?

Then you're a sociopath.

[bobthechef]

Losing your soul to acquire something less valuable defeats the point of acquiring the inferior good in the first place. Every sin, every immoral act, is such an act of self-betrayal and spiritual self-mutilation. It is an act that is so profoundly nonsensical, stupid, and absurd that it boggles the mind. But given what we might call the human condition, the moral life is made difficult, especially because we have a tendency to rebel against the truth and because we are cowards. But it is the only road to true happiness.

So here's your city of gold and your garden of delights, but only if you desecrate and destroy yourself, cripple your mind, poison your heart, and blind yourself first. Oh, and here's the cherry on top: when you lay in your self-made gutter, let all these riches taste to you like ash.

[lotsofpulp]

> I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone:

>"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?"

This would only affect people who assume “they” have an immortal component, i.e. a soul.

[M277]

Even if you don't subscribe to that belief, you still have something to lose -- conscience.

Conscience doesn't really die overnight (and this is from my experience of living in a corrupt society), it's a death-by-a-thousand-cuts situation. The beginning is "Come on, everyone is doing it" and you can guess the end.

[webmaven]

> Even if you don't subscribe to that belief, you still have something to lose -- conscience.

Integrity also works as an asset that can be lost to corruption. And for those that aren't inclined to put much stock in that sort of inner-life intangible, consider reputation as an outward facing stand-in.

[coldtea]

>Conscience doesn't really die overnight

Well, some are ruthless and competitive without coscience even as kids, and continue so...

[M277]

Yes, but do they really start out like that, or is it a gradual descent? There's usually a catalyst that starts it in kids. Parents demanding success at all cost / rampant cheating around them (or just being surrounded by ruthless kids) / a very competitive rat race that turns out to be pretty dirty / the parents themselves are without conscience / etc.

[Thiez]

I think children tend to be pretty cruel when given the chance, many of whom grow up to be decent people. While there are certainly bad people out there who were already rotten as children, I don't subscribe to the theory that people are born perfect and then somehow experience moral decay as they grow older.

[novia]

You can look at it metaphorically. Whatever that thing is that people are talking about when they say, "have a heart!!", that's the soul. It's supposed to be your innermost self. If your innermost self becomes unethical or immoral as a habit, that's, "losing your soul."