|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
BrentinUtahsDixie wrote:
> Hopefully avoiding a major religious debate...
>
> For us in the west, one cannot ignore the 10 commandments as an ethical
> guide.
Without wanting to get into this too much, surely you mean one *ought* not to
disobey them. Why not? From here, you are doomed to circularity. (This is
about the kindest way I could put this <g>)
> Running a gambling establishment could be
> stealing. But gambling isn't stealing.
One could run a gambling establishment *and* steal as well, but I don't see the
connection.
> Risking yourself and your families
> welfare could be a form of theft in my opinion
Not unless one stole from them in doing so. The alleged "theft" from oneself
is particularly interesting.
> Now about coveting, this is a question of motivation. Coveting riches is
> coveting.
Perhaps, but what would be wrong with coveting anyway?
> Wanting to succeed and provide for ones needs is not coveting.
You seem to be referring to something like coveting "excess" here. What is
excess, who is to decide, and what would make this *in itself* wrong?
> It could be considered wrong to allow oneself or to encourage others to be
> involved in sin. It's kind like being an accomplis.
If "sin" was to be defined as "the harming of others against their will," I
agree.
> Brokers might be on
> shaky ground in this, what is their motivation.
While some brokers might, why in the world would this be the case generally?
> Motive in the end is what
> makes many actions ethical or not.
The classic counterexample to this is the acts of the Spanish Inquisition - is
the brutal torture of innocent people to be made "good" if it was done out of
good will? We can speak of actions or motive - and either can be made out to
be 'good" or "bad" - but we must avoid conflating them.
> It comes down to a question of degree
> and we must weigh ourselves to find out what the degree is.
Not sure what you mean here - other than there can be degrees of ill will -
which would be true.
> I think it's interesting that traditional farming is considered an
> honorable profession. However, the risks involved in traditional farming
> were colossal and the funny part is that the exchanges were created to
> hedge some of that risk.
I don't think this affair has anything to do with risk. It is odd sometimes
how common beliefs can be formed about the "honor" surrounding certain
professions (presumably seen as a manifestation of degree of admiration), but
this can't be taken too seriously anyway. For instance, it is probably true
that most lawyers conduct themselves honorably, even though there is a
prevailing belief that this is a less than "honorable" way to make a living.
Where does trading fit in here? While there are shady characters in any
profession, I don't think that trading is considered particularly dishonorable
generally anyway, and there really isn't any good reason IMO why it ought to be
seen as such.
My intention here is not to start a flame - but simply to point out that the
issues here are a little more complex than they can appear. I'd be glad to
discuss this further with you by private email (to spare the rest of the group
<g>) should you wish.
Regards,
A.J.
|