[sliverstorm]

Where along that chain did it stop becoming the fault of the businessman, if ever?

Current ethics would probably say, it was never the fault of the businessman. The profits were ripe for the taking; under a capitalist worldview, someone would have taken them, whether or not it was this businessman.

As far as we can tell, the businessman did nothing expressly immoral- the consequences were externalities, and our moral systems are rarely developed to encompass anything beyond externalities of the first degree, because let's face it- externalities are damn hard to predict, understand, or even monitor.

[cam_l]

At what point, when you become aware of the results of your actions do you take responsibility for them?

If you deliberately avoid determining the results of your actions, though you have the capacity to learn, are you still responsible?

[OrwellianChild]

I think most economists would argue that it is unrealistic to expect everyone to shy away from a profit opportunity just because of a moral flag... Better to regulate the industry through government or privatize under tax/regulation to align everyone's incentives whether they be profit or moral...

[cam_l]

Responsibility is not a binary proposition.

And I would argue the moral paucity in the story is more of a 'death by a thousand cuts' sort of thing.

[praptak]

> someone would have taken them, whether or not it was this businessman.

Gimme a break - "someone else would have done that"? Is there really an ethics system that would score this above "shitty excuse"?

[sliverstorm]

Well, there's always the famous inverse example:

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

i.e., it was not ethical because no one else would make the step either.

[rhyme]

The profits were already being enjoyed by the fisherman. The problem is that the profits were rapidly extracted at a rate that the environment could not support. Sucked dry.

Enter stage left: Sustainability.

As someone posted above, the Triple Bottom Line presents a different concept of capitalism that takes into account the limited supply of resources that make profitable life possible. At our current rate of growth, if we do not refocus efforts on sustainable consumption, we will all end up like the fisherman.

[deepvibrations]

Last sentence particularly rings true for me! Where ever there are profits, there is also a deficit elsewhere, this is one of the core problems with our monetary system. We are brought up not to be greedy and to be generous, then as soon as we enter the real world as adults that need to earn a living, many are forced to make decisions that are not ethical in order to survive/support family etc. I have been spending a lot of time looking into the Resource Based Economy recently and this model seems far superior to anything we have at the moment, unfortunately, it is so radically different from what we have that it is going to take a lot of educating and a lot of work to start abandoning our current failing system in favour of another. Still, I have a lot of hope for the future, we have everything we need right now to change the world, we just need everyone to be willing and ready to accept this change!

[sliverstorm]

It is obvious that is the problem. I am not disputing that.

[rhizome]

It's never the fault of the businessman because capital is amoral, but there's a case to be made that his choices are an instance of poor ethics.