How does mocality make money

The annual doomsaying of the Worldwatch Institute? And it is now commonplace that a mad theory will pass on into the courts and be used to devastate a business, as Dow-Corning was crushed by false assertions about the health effects of silicone breast implants.

Business executives rarely defend themselves morally from these assaults. When they do mount a defense, it is not often one that asserts pride in making money. Rather, like William Clay Ford, they assume that there is nothing moral about building good products that people want and are willing to pay for.

They assume that "moral" means "serving the public good" or "caring for the environment. Yet making a profit is what they do. Indeed, for corporate officers, it is their duty to the shareholders who hire them. As if they sense the inconsistency of their received, altruistic morality, many business leaders adopt cynicism and hypocrisy as a reflexive stance.

Thus, it is those most involved in making money who most need to appreciate its meaning. Our capitalistic culture can thrive only when we understand that making money demands our best, and that no apology is needed for achievement and excellence. William R Thomas writes about and teaches Objectivist ideas. He is also an economist, teaching occasionally at a variety of universities. Reading Lists. What is Objectivism? Personal Application.

Browse by Category. Ayn Rand. Current Events. Personal Life. Waterfall Courses. Explore the essential role that money plays in production, trade, and investment.

Examine the aspirations, arguments, strategies, and disasters of socialist theory and practice. Examine the history of slavery and the powerful ideas behind the great moral and political campaigns against slavery. The people behind the movement. Bring a liberty chapter to your campus. We promote open Objectivism: the philosophy of reason, achievement, individualism, and freedom. Although wealth is certainly subjective, most of the current research measures wealth on scales of income, job status, or socioeconomic circumstances, like educational attainment and intergenerational wealth.

Several studies have shown that wealth may be at odds with empathy and compassion. Lower-class individuals have to respond chronically to a number of vulnerabilities and social threats. You really need to depend on others so they will tell you if a social threat or opportunity is coming, and that makes you more perceptive of emotions.

While a lack of resources fosters greater emotional intelligence, having more resources can cause bad behavior in its own right. UC Berkeley research found that even fake money could make people behave with less regard for others. Researchers observed that when two students played Monopoly, one having been given a great deal more Monopoly money than the other, the wealthier player expressed initial discomfort, but then went on to act aggressively, taking up more space and moving his pieces more loudly, and even taunting the player with less money.

It is no surprise in this post world to learn that wealth may cause a sense of moral entitlement. A UC Berkeley study found that in San Francisco—where the law requires that cars stop at crosswalks for pedestrians to pass—drivers of luxury cars were four times less likely than those in less expensive vehicles to stop and allow pedestrians the right of way. They were also more likely to cut off other drivers. John argues that corporations are not people but rather devices to insulate people from the effects of their own decisions.

Ken, in the spirit of Locke, argues that people are defined as intelligent beings, capable of reason and reflection, with the ability of self recognition at different times and places. Thus, he argues, it is metaphysically bizarre to call corporations people.

John agrees, but shifts the conversation from metaphysics to morals, questioning whether corporations should be responsible to just their shareholders or to the entire community. Professor Neil Malhotra joins the discussion concerning moral and economic incentives for corporations, grounded in the case of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Under law, corporations are beholden only to their shareholders, instead of the larger pool of stakeholders, such as consumers, taxpayers, and third parties. The shareholder model, Malhotra says, encourages short-term thinking, as the price of a stock share is reported every quarter.

Other countries, notably those with stronger traditions of family owned businesses, have adopted the stakeholder model. The show concludes with a comparison of the European and American economic systems, noting the tradeoff between social welfare and social goods. While the European economy would seem to stand on higher moral ground by providing social services, the U.

John poses the questions, what if a firm decided to operate on a purely moral basis? Would profits noticeably differ? How can a corporation balance moral and economic incentives, so its actions have the most benefit and the least harm?

Money makes the world go around. But what sort of thing is money? He asks such questions as: is it right to create a market in blood, rather than rely on altruistic donors? Should unhealthy people be given financial incentives to adopt healthier lifestyles? This may explain the tremendous popularity he now enjoys. The idea that money has destroyed all vestige of civic virtue was hackneyed already in Roman times.

This was standard practice in 18th century London. But then to talk about the 18th century is to realise just how much more thoroughgoing the marketisation of society used to be. Commissions in the British army and civil service appointments were bought, rather than given on merit, well into the 19th century.