Thursday, September 3, 2009

Profit

Looking at Wikipedia over the past few days, I was impressed at how Milton Hershey and Ted Turner were able to make money through creating types of products and were willing to give a good deal back through charity, the latter especially also enjoying his wealth and status. I do think that charity is optional but commendable.

Then on the other hand there's Ralph Reed; after years of working to enact conservative Christian principles into law, he privately wrote to Jack Abramoff in 1998 "now that I’m done with the electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts!"

He also liked and wanted money; a fine, fairly standard trait, but one that in this context, contrasted with how much he felt others should be constrained by Christian doctrines (the love of money is condemned in Christianity), illuminates sad hypocrisy.

Sacrifice and morality depend on having a choice so the dread and prohibition of vice relies on a fundamentally disrespectful view of mankind, that we must be safeguarded and controlled.

When people are motivated to compete in a market driven by makers, sellers and consumers, the most people can win in the most just manner.

On the other hand, when people make demands for sacrifices, they typically only mean of others, as is seen by the support for the idea of the government reducing health care prices. These supporters through their actions demand that health care providers make less for the betterment of the group while they themselves likely, understandably, focus mostly on improving their own conditions even though they could do less to improve the conditions of the lesser-off and the whole group. Making demands for others that you won't meet yourself is immoral, especially when the demand is to be put into binding law, that's an even higher form of hypocrisy than just a discrepancy between pronouncements and personal life.

No comments:

Post a Comment