Is legitimacy enough when making money?

[Mikhaila]

The beginning is here http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=60257#post60257


Hi Michael,
I feel your suggestion/question has a right to go on it’s own topic. It has a great potential for brilliant discussion and not really relevant to interest rates. So here it is . It is started from George Soros:

Originally posted by Mikhaila

He (George Soros) uses legitimate ways to earn money that all it counts, and if some government stupidity/corruption/stubbornness taken advantage of I don’t feel sorry.

Originally posted by Michael Croft

Hi Mikhaila,

His methods may be legally permissable and even acceptable to some, but does that make them right. Hitler had the legal right to send millions to their deaths, was that all that counted too? I personally think there is a little more at stake than legitimacy when making money.

I don’t want to comment about your Hitler remark as I feel it is highly unappropriated to make such comparisons in this context. So I’d like to take just last part of your answer and discuss - is it enough to be within the boundaries of the law when making money?

My answer is very definite yes. The rest is secondary and doesn’t count . Many nations, different cultures have different moral values. So as long as it is legitimate in the jurisdiction you make your business it is OK to do. It is as simple as that.

 

[Aceyducey]

This is the Legal versus Ethical issue popping up again.

Try reading the one-minute millionnaire, it has some good insights about ethics in investment.

Basically, you are legally allowed to do anything not illegal, whether you should do things that may be considered unethical is a personal choice with personal consequences rather than legal ones.

Personally I prefer to err on the Ethical side (based on my beliefs on what is ethical) because of the advantages this has delivered in good will and internal happiness.

I know some other people on this forum are more Legal in their approach than Ethical - I would see this approach as encompassing the thought 'if something is legal there is nothing ethically wrong with it (otherwise the government would make it illegal)'. There's no law against this approach

Myself, I prefer to avoid dealing with unethical people, having met many of them in business, they show a disturbing trend of imploding just before reaching success (and taking other peoples' money and reputations with them).

BTW: My comment about George Soros was purely in jest. It seems poor George is being blamed for a lot of things these days. I always wonder who is using him as the scapegoat.


Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Mikhaila]

Hi Acey,

Interesting way to marry things… The Ethical vs Legal. I understand very well Legal. It is clearly enough defined, but Ethical… Ethical for Australian is not necessarily ethical for Saudi Arabian and visa versa. Ask what ethical is ten different people and you get ten different answers. Ethical relatively easy to describe on the personal level, but what is Ethical in investment? I am not talking about tobacco companies and environment destroyers here. It’s too easy and pretty much black & white. How about picking a property bargain. Is it ethical to pay clearly less than a market price. If yes, under what circumstances and why? Family divorce? Death of the bread earner? Lost all money in a share market? Drag dependency? Old person doesn’t have a clue about the prices? Interstate investor in trouble? Who draws the line? How do you decide what is ethical? Would you pay market price instead as a good will gesture?

Interested to hear your answer before I continue.

 

[Michael Croft]

Hi Mikhaila,

Sorry you find references to Hitler highly inappropriate. I thought it was given that we were discussing ends being justified by the means as well as interest rates.

Yes Hitler is an extreme example easily understood by most in black and white terms. On the other hand, George Soros is a grey area for many. I admire his intuitive ability to spot an opening and to turn it ot his advantage - I trait we share but not on the same scale. However I try and work on a win/win basis whereas when he wins, millions of innocent bystanders lose.

So perhaps we agree to differ on ethics and the creation of wealth? And maybe thats just it; I believe in creating wealth and not at the expense of others; but what George Soros does often seems to me a kind of theft, albeit legal.

regards, MC

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

I think buying a property below market value in most free markets is entirly ethical - regardless of what price you pay.

A few points to consider:

* The market value is the agreed sale price - what the buyer is willing to pay and the seller is willing to accept. Not what a report or any other third party says it is.

* If I can sell that same property the next day at a higher price, it's because I have something that the vendor doesn't. It may be ablity, time, risk profile, contacts or what ever, but that that comes down to my ability to make money or add value in some way.

* When vendors must sell in firesale conditions, the trigger for making them sell may not be their doing, but the fact that they're under firesale conditions usually is. eg. Loosing your job may not be your fault, but overextending yourself and becoming so utterly dependant on your job that you have to sell the minute you don't have a job usually is.

* In todays market, if you unknowingly sell your property at a low price, you probably haven't been paying attention, or you didn't do your due diligence (either on your property value or perhaps on the listing agent).

As for tabacco companies, people have long known the health hazards of smoking so the ethics there is debatable - although I would agree that manufacturing/selling tabacco is unethical. However, tabacco companies do knowingly add addictive elements and toxic chemicals to their products and that is certainly unethical.

 

[Mikhaila]

Hi Michael,

Would you mind answering what I asked Acey above?

Originally posted by Michael Croft
Hi Mikhaila,
So perhaps we agree to differ on ethics and the creation of wealth? And maybe thats just it; I believe in creating wealth and not at the expense of others; but what George Soros does often seems to me a kind of theft, albeit legal.

regards, MC

 

[always_learning]

So as long as it is legitimate in the jurisdiction you make your business it is OK to do. It is as simple as that.

I disagree, if you could open a sweatshop in Cambodia with child workers because the military "leadership" decided it was legal and make great profits would you? Nike was prepared to say "its legal so it's OK, anyway its not us its our partners who are just doing it"

Would you open a brothel with imported Cambodian 16-year-old girls if it were legal?

OK this is going to an extreme, in the discussion; we must all look into our hearts to decide the question:
"If I can do it, should I do it, is it the right thing to do, is it right for me, is it right for the other party?"

Are my actions hurting other? are my actions placing anyone at risk?, are my actions perpetuating domination by force/threat/intimidation; are my action exploiting the weaknesses of others ?

Honestly some things that are legal are just plain wrong!

Lets take a step backwards and ask bigger questions.

First we must ask the outcome of business and capitalism?
Why structure our society around activities of business organizations?
What does it mean to measure the effectiveness of businesses by "profits" it generates?
What does (or should) profit mean?
What is the point of money as a concept?

I think that as capitalists (IP owners) in a capitalistic society we should each be able to answer these questions without thinking

I believe that there is only one reason for the existence of business; business organizations exist as an organ of society, business organizations exist to serve and benefit society. Business is a concept based on the idea that people who live in society and to greater extent humanity are benefited by the activities of a business organization. Profits are not the end in itself, profits are just one measure of business effectiveness. The use of the concept of "business organization" have by trail and error, given human instincts found to be the most effect means to improvement of society. By definition a business should improve society or society should have it shutdown and abandoned. Profits should be a measure of the positive effect of a business, personal wealth a measure of your own personal effectiveness. High rewards ( houses, cars, holidays, access to the sexually attractive ) should follow those who create the most benefits value to society, not the person who scams the most people legally!

 

[Aceyducey]

Originally posted by Mikhaila

Ethical relatively easy to describe on the personal level, but what is Ethical in investment? I am not talking about tobacco companies and environment destroyers here. It’s too easy and pretty much black & white. How about picking a property bargain. Is it ethical to pay clearly less than a market price.....

Interested to hear your answer before I continue.

Mikhail, If I could give you a cut and dry answer I'd be falling on the Legal side not the Ethical side of the issue

Black and white answers are the province of Laws not personal ethics.

However, from what I've read and discussed with other investors, th key attribute of ethics in investing is that your goal is to create wealth without actively and knowingly harming others, aiming for win-win situations and sustainable relationships.

Essentially I agree with Michael Croft.

I aim to achieve win-win situations. My job is providing housing for people who cannot afford or choose not to own and to develop property for this purpose.

This does not preclude selecting who I help and ensuring they can pay the rent as the relationship & obligations are mutual.


The important thing about being ethical is that you MUST be honest with yourself. This is often quite difficult as there is often the inventive to turn the blind-eye and take unethical actions that do hurt someone. Some of the self excuses used are, I didn't know that person, they could have negotiated better/been more skilled, or simply refusing to acknowledge the other person's existence as a human (which has been the justification for violence and slavery throughout history).

These excuses are often used in the corporate world during corporate politics...they can get another job, they weren't really suited for the role, they weren't a nice person.....all are justifications designed to obscure any need to feel remorse or that there has been unethical behaviour.


Answering your questions specifically:

Is it ethical to pay clearly less than a market price?

There is no true market price, there is supply and demand. I will offer what I feel is a fair price according to the numbers I need to be successful, to offer more and cause myself financial issues or have the sale fall through is not fair to either party.

If yes, under what circumstances and why? Family divorce? Death of the bread earner? Lost all money in a share market? Drag dependency? Old person doesn’t have a clue about the prices? Interstate investor in trouble?

In all cases I would offer what I felt was a fair price. The other party can choose to take it or go elsewhere. if they have no other options but my price is still too low (and they tell me) I will do what I can to find a way of making the deal work....this may involve vendor financing, longer-settlements, partial payments, past-owner tenancy or cojoint ownership amongst other possibilities. But if the deal doesn't work for me I cannot buy the property.


Who draws the line?

You do. And don't let the line draw you People slide into unethical behaviour, only your internal sense of right and wrong can really keep you questioning your choices.


How do you decide what is ethical?

Firstly, by what works without causing harm (or causes the minimum of harm achievable). This means for EVERYONE involved. I can't afford to be a charity....and most charities do a poor job of establishing and communicating their ethical positions anyway (particularly to their staff!


Would you pay market price instead as a good will gesture?

Goodwill to whom? Not to MY starving children....deals must be win-win for a business to be sustainable.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Les]

G'day all,

Loving the thread (the question and the answers that are coming thru). This really is a "grey" area - and probably a very personal area.

One of Aceyducey's comments struck a chord, and had me think (yet again) of Jan's "Story By Story" book. For those that have the book, check out story #82 - "The Church".

Aceyducey>> How do you decide what is ethical?

Firstly, by what works without causing harm (or causes the minimum of harm achievable

Talk about "shades of grey" and "the right decision can become the WRONG decision". Do re-read it if you have the book.

Regards,

 

[Kristine..]

G'day

I'm finding all this theorising very interesting, a first cousin to UK Mike's 'Doing Business with Like Minded People (who may have a chequered past)' thread.

Aceyducey, your question (quote) ... How do you decide what is ethical? Firstly, by what works without causing harm ... (unquote)


In recent weeks I have been pondering the question and interpretation of the word 'Trust'. I have come to the conclusion that when we use the word trust, we really mean 'I believe that you will do me no harm'.

I don't think we mean 'I believe you will look after (promote) my interests / do the best (for me) you can', but that you will 'do me no harm'.

When we behave ethically, in business or friendship, we behave in a way which will do no harm.

As a woman, I have been brought up to eat the burnt chop, to turn the other cheek, and to say 'that's allright' when someone stands on my toes.

And in so doing, I sometimes allow harm to be done to myself. So am I trustworthy towards myself?

I don't have to turn to cannibalism, though, to start to put my own (and family) interests at the top of the list.

Anthropologists study the way humans behave, and we all have a clan or tribe identity. It is ingrained. If you do not belong to my tribe, you must be a threat. Therefore, I do not 'trust' you.

But we can enlarge our tribe, in theory at least, to include just about anyone on this planet.

So, if we remove the psychological threat, and the world is no longer divided into 'them' and 'us', acting ethically and in a trustworthy manner becomes easy and will always produce a 'win-win' situation.

How? Easy. Just imagine that the next person you will do business with will be moving in next door to you. Or joining your company, or playing on your bowling team, or that they are first cousing to your next door neighbour etc. In other words, you have to face them, and meet them, again and again. Will that create a different pattern of behaviour or reinforce the ethical standards you usually apply!

It is easy to negotiate fairly.

Acey: (quote)... In all cases I would offer what I felt was a fair price. The other party can choose to take it or go elsewhere...(unquote)


Obviously, if you offered a pensioner $10,000 for their house, you might try and have an independent witness to the deal, or insist that they seek legal advice before accepting your offer, but if you offered $10,000 at public auction, and your bid was accepted in front of the crowd, then that was a fair transaction.

Acey (quote) ...Myself, I prefer to avoid dealing with unethical people, having met many of them in business, they show a disturbing trend of imploding just before reaching success (and taking other peoples' money and reputations with them) ... unquote). Yes, Acey, I've met a few like that, too!


And for me, I would like to be in business for a long time. Perhaps one day I will make a profit! Deals may come and go, but if this be my epitaph 'She was a trustworthy person', then I have truly lived an honourable life and all the rest is secondary.

From the I Ching, the Five Blessings are Health, Wealth, Happiness, a Love of Virtue and a Natural Death.


Who could ask for more?

Kristine


Oh! and to answer the question!!

Is legitimacy enough when making money ...

No, I don't think so. There are many things which are legitimate, but which I have no taste for, and therefore would find it almost impossible to be involved with and successful at.

But we Australians teeter on the brink of wowserism at the best of times. No Spitting! No Smoking! Oh! Don't do that! My goodness, what is the world coming to?? (Is it our deep convict subconscious, that we are going to get caught with our fingers in the till and be deported to ?? ... ?? No, sorry, can't think of anyplace without sheep!

And rather than endure yet more restrictions on our personal liberties (have you got a clean handkerchief?) perhaps it's best to let that great juggernaut, The Market, decide what should survive.

In the meantime, appease your conscience and only buy at auction in front of a large crowd from vendors who are selling to buy bigger and better, then rent it to a large family who really appreciate the nice, clean, safe and well maintained home which you have made available for them.

Yoh!

 

[Mikhaila]

Yeah, interesting topic indeed. I read the answers and can’t stop the feeling… it just creeps in I try to fight it, here is the next paragraph, oh no! It returns again… THE HYPOCRICY.

What a wonderful and magic word is “win-win”. It is also about a free market, supply and demand, what works/good for me. Business should be sustainable indeed and yes we are not charities. Like the word “no harm”, though it stands fair distance from “minimum harm”. To top it all up I really like Michael Croft comment about Soros “I admire his intuitive ability to spot an opening and to turn it to his advantage - I trait we share but not on the same scale. However I try and work on a win/win basis whereas when he wins, millions of innocent bystanders lose.” Yeah, this is it. This is brilliant in fact, as it is like saying, he wins big it is bad, that is stealing, but us we don’t make millions we are the good guys. We are the win-win team. We don’t harm - plus minus 10K couldn’t harm, could it? Rent increase, oh but my kids are starving too!

Acey, you said there is no true market price, yet few lines after you say “In all cases I would offer what I felt was a fair price”. I guess you determine this price based on your figures not the vendor. When I asked “Would you pay market price instead as a good will gesture?” I was referring to the fire sale situation when the vendor wants to get the money ASAP and you were in the right place at the right time. The price is below your fair value. Would you top it up? I think, I know the answer.

Sorry, guys I don’t want to have a go at you, but do you really, honestly want me to believe you? It looks to me that you are not quite honest with yourself. I consider myself ethical person in everyday life. I was lucky enough to be raised with good values. When it comes to investing I am not kidding myself about ethical behavior – there is law of open market, supply and demand. This is it. Is it fair? HELL NO! It is terribly unfair in times. By all means you can ethically behave by sticking to the word(not the contract) you gave, disclosing necessary information, if win-win achievable, thank God, and proceed with it.

So, Is legitimacy enough when making money? I believe it is. It is different matter if you want to be involved in the business or not, but we can’t label people who involved in the business we don’t like judging by our ethical standards. If the business is really so badly unethical, we ought to try changing the law.

 

[Aceyducey]

Mikhaila,

It's fine for you to feel hypocritical, just bear in mind that we're all human & trying to do the best we can

Hypocrisy is more applicable to people who say one thing and do another - I know people like Michael Croft, Always_Learning, Kristine and myself are trying to steer along ethical pathways - the intention matches the actions, thus no hypocrisy applies.

Are you aware that psychologically speaking, the hypocrisy you feel may just be a justification for your own failings?

Is it an excuse you use to justify unethical behaviour?
In effect saying, well these people say they are ethical, but I bet they are really unethical because I know how hard it is to be ethical, so I shouldn't even try to be ethical myself.

Alternatively it could be a reaction based on coming into contact with unethical people in your own life.

Just keep an open mind and try to live according to your own principles, regardless of how well you believe others live up to their principles - or yours

BTW: Of course I would determine a fair price based on my figures - that's not unethical, it's practical. Total selflessness is no more ethical than is total selfishness

And if the price the vendor wanted was lower than my offer, well then they are getting an excellent deal aren't they If instead they say they want X and I was prepared to offer higher, why should I - they want X...That is also not unethical UNLESS they have diminished capacity.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Kristine..]

Originally posted by Mikhaila
Yeah, interesting topic indeed. I read the answers and can’t stop the feeling… it just creeps in I try to fight it, here is the next paragraph, oh no! It returns again… THE HYPOCRICY.

Wow, Mikhaila

Are you ever steamed up!

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines hypocrisy as 'simulation of virtue or goodness; dissimulation, pretence'

and, of course, all of us (humanity) are guilty of hypocrisy in one form or another, probably every day of our lives.

But are we guilty of hypocrisy because we do try and set ethical standards for ourselves, and try and believe that we practise those standards? I think not.

The virtue or goodness to which we aspire is real to ourselves, although my definition of such may be quite different to yours. So if I judge your virtue to be worthless, does my judgement make it so or not?

Perhaps virtue and goodness, like beauty, is in the perception of the beholder.

In Australia we do not have a culture of bargaining. We do not, as a general rule, try and scalp the other party. This applies whether we are dealing one to one, or producing something which is sold to the general public. We do not package used industrial oil as cooking oil and pretend innocence as two hundred people die. We do not run heavy metal smelting plants which create cancers and birth defects and claim it would be uneconomic to close or at least clean up the plant.

We do not stand by helplessly as hundreds of people quietly dissapear each year.

Really, we are just ordinary Joe Blows, and from my observation, the common or garden variety of investor is pretty ordinary, too.

For most people, legitimacy is not enough reason for embarking on a business venture. But there will always be some people who deliberately embark on illegal activities, or who always try to take the sneaky advantage, or who always run so close to the legal or ethical wind that the ordinary person feels tainted after coming into contact with them.

Mikhaila, the rest of us pay our taxes (albeit somewhat late), are kind to our spouses, and treat the rest of the world by the standards of the Golden Rule:

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

And, sorry, but I can't call that hypocrisy. I think we are all entitled to believe that we do actually behave the way we would like to behave, and gradually, we become the person we set out to be.

Cheers

Kristine

 

[Mikhaila]

Good reply Acey. I am living by my own principals, and fortunately enough I am in peace with myself. What got me really in Kristine response is that if I try to think about the people I deal with in realestate as people moving next door I would probably go broke . It just confirms my point of view that day to day ethical standards don’t applicable ( for me) in my RE dealings.

This topic started with Soros… It was proposed he is unethical investor. Based on the some of the replies it looks like:

1. He is kind of OK, may be not completely ethical but not so bad, after all he speculates currency. This is not value adding to the society exercise. It makes all us here (apologies for generalization) kind of OK too. Well, at least we try hard
2. He is not OK. He harms people and robes them where he can. Not only people, but the whole nations. We not like him in terms of the scale, but never the less it makes us…..?

P.S. I was provocative a bit by purpose to spark that little bit more. I think I succeeded The hypocrisy
comment was mainly in relation to Acey and Michael responses. No hard feelings folks!

Kristine, I'd probably print your words to hang in my office!
"Perhaps virtue and goodness, like beauty, is in the perception of the beholder."
Next time I negotiate a deal I’ll just think they can not see my “beauty”

 

[Sim]

Justification of unethical behaviour through legality and through an argument that it is "simply too difficult to define ethics clearly enough, so let's stick to the black and white legalisms only" - this is nothing more than a cop-out.

Yes, trying to work the "ethical" way is difficult, mostly because this becomes a very subjective thing and there are no black and white rules.

However, this does not justify not trying.

Life is not a structured right and wrong environment. There are an infinite number of decisions we make in our lives which are neither perfectly harmless or perfectly legal. Life is full of greys.

What makes us decent human beings is when we "try" and do the right thing. What destroys a society is when people stop trying. The excuse is usually something about my definition of right not matching with your own definition.

None of this discussion about ethics can be rationalised - try to rationalise ethics, values, morals, feelings, love... that way lies madness.

I had one of those "a-ha" moments of understanding when I finally understood that there is no (or at least, not much) right and wrong when it comes to tax law - it is a fluid environment based on opinion, precedent and to a certain extent public opinion.

The sooner you come to terms with the concepts of ethics and right and wrong not being purely black and white, the sooner you will work out that you can actually play in this world and be have some form of ethics without torturing yourself through self deluded hypocracy.

To me, trying to observe some sense of moral balance and ethics while learning to live with the mentally lethal hypocrisy of it all is better than not trying at all.

"It's just business" are some of the most damning words I've ever heard people use. At the same time, there is such as thing as business reality and all the greatest intentions in the world won't help you when you have to make the tough decisions where not everyone wins. I can come up with many scenarios which are not win-win, more like some-win-some-lose.

Try this one. You run a manufacturing company that employs 500 people. Disaster strikes and you lose one of your factories (flood, fire, meteorite etc). The economy has been struggling lately, and cash is just not flowing the way you need it to. In order to stay afloat, you will need to cut costs dramatically - you need to sack at least half of your workers. If you try and keep all 500 workers on, you will surely go bankrupt, causing all of them to lose their jobs. So either way you cause harm ... what do you do ? There is no win-win here and it's through no fault of your own.

I think AceyDucey said it well... we are only human and trying to do the best we can.

It's the people who don't try that I have a problem with !

 

[Tibor]

Great thread, enjoying it tremendously.

Complete agreement with AL, and I think several problems in today's society is due to the fact that companies have forgotten
that there is more than making profit. The human side, especially within large organisations disappears slowly, but surely. I've listened to GE's ex CEO in the radio over the last weekend driving up to Brissie and could not believe what I was hearing. Profits and money and high executive salaries were the only issues. It is very american and very unaustralian, albeit it changes here as well.

I understand private enterprise must be profitable, but it should not be the only reason for its in existence. Primary goal is to provide something useful for society / humanity and if it succeeds, then profit will follow. Unfortunately, latter overtakes after a while and will become the primary focus, while the original cause if almost forgotten. This also applies to RE investing. One can be ethical according to once's own principles, but is this ethic is rather unique to the person and not wrong or right as long as the original principle "provide something good / useful for society humanity' is not forgotten.

Opportunities for profit always were, are and will be. But only those ones will survive in the long term who keep their mind focused on the original principles.

Just my 2c.

Tibor

Tibor

 

[Michael Croft]

Yes Mikhaila I will answer your questions to Acey, and the answer is relatively simple and personal.

The main difference for me is that all of the situations form part of that nebulous thing called life and are not of my making and were not in my control. I realise that I cannot give a win/win to a 'drag' dependent divorce and my response in this situation is 'to do the least harm'. I have often paid the asking price on a property where I know that by adding value there is money in it for me, rather than screwing the unfortunates for an extra discount.

If the regulated market here in Australia has set a price then people aren't ecessively ripped off. If someone sells a house at $20k 'below market' and the house was worth $200k is that really a life destroying situation? Pain in the hip pocket certainly, but not having food on the table next week? I don't think so.

I was born and raised in third world countries so I know absolute poverty and the hardships that this creates. In Oz we are blessed and have relative poverty and very little absolute poverty. Here there is a safety net and no one IF THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR THEIR ACTIONS will go hungry or be without shelter. We even try to look after those who won't take responsibility.

So George Soros takes control and makes the market (legally) and damn the consequences. I prefer to creat wealth by doing the least harm - not always easy but always doable.

regards, MC

Originally posted by Mikhaila
Hi Acey,

Interesting way to marry things… The Ethical vs Legal. I understand very well Legal. It is clearly enough defined, but Ethical… Ethical for Australian is not necessarily ethical for Saudi Arabian and visa versa. Ask what ethical is ten different people and you get ten different answers. Ethical relatively easy to describe on the personal level, but what is Ethical in investment? I am not talking about tobacco companies and environment destroyers here. It’s too easy and pretty much black & white. How about picking a property bargain. Is it ethical to pay clearly less than a market price. If yes, under what circumstances and why? Family divorce? Death of the bread earner? Lost all money in a share market? Drag dependency? Old person doesn’t have a clue about the prices? Interstate investor in trouble? Who draws the line? How do you decide what is ethical? Would you pay market price instead as a good will gesture?

Interested to hear your answer before I continue.

 

[sanchez]

Kristine said it best - do unto others as you would have done to yourself - isn't that the key to it all? Isnt that the basis to all religions and legal systems? Laws are in place to set a minimum standard of what we find as a community to be acceptable. They are there to spell out the ground rules to those who need to be told. They will never be able to fully define"ethical" behaviour, nor will they ever be perfect or cover every possibility - yes and in many cases they will be very lacking. So if you think that all you have to do is not break the law, then you are showing yourself to be lacking in your own principals. And what is this crap about the system not being fair but that's the only way to make money! What sort of a justification is that. It removes all of your responsibility.

Humans have the capability of anticipating. Therfore with a bit of foresight, an idea and some effort, we can create something that may save us time, may feed us better or give us protection from the elements (profit). Where does somebody else losing out come into that. If your dealings require someone to lose, then that shows that you are not really adding value, you are just taking from others. Making money by ripping off a pensioner does not make you smart, and you can't say that they had every opportunity to find out what the real market value is. Thats no different than me robbing your house because you were stupid enough to leave it unlocked - your fault, not mine!

 

[Mikhaila]

I knew it would be an interesting topic! It’s good to see deep, passionate and some emotional responses. Please, remember I am not trying to have a go at any of you folks, or to question your ethical values. Besides it is impossible to question, I am not a judge for you nor willing to be one. I try to push you to look at the things differently, and you pushing me in a way as well. So, may I push it a bit further?

It is undoubtedly a grey area. I asked uneasy question at the begging which is difficult to answer in B&W, and received several type of responses. Fundamentally, almost all who decided to answer chosen to give “grey” answer. This is to pretend something else was asked, yet the question was crystal clear and not ambiguus. Probably only Acey answered it directly from the second time. I wonder, is it because it so uncomfortable to answer or for some other reason?

It also seams people tend to judge in B&W terms others but escape into the “grey area” comfort zone when answering themselves. Sim put very interesting point about excuses that my definition of right is different from your definition of right. Is it really an excuse? This is almost the definition of the issue. This is where grey lays. This is why it is impossible to define ethics clearly. Also, how do you define “trying”? One person hard trying is a joke for another and visa versa.

Now to the “Least harm” way of doing things. Michael, do you honestly believe in “least harm” way? I understand the “no harm” – this is ethical indeed, but “least harm”, hey try to define that. I am sure it will be hundreds of people out there in Australia for whom 20K will be a huge harm, not to starvation level but bad enough to label it unethical. Also how do you know Soros don’t use “least harm” principal? It’s just his “least harm way” is different from somebody else.

Sanchez, this is not a crap this is a reality. You say “Making money by ripping off a pensioner does not make you smart, and you can't say that they had every opportunity to find out what the real market value is. Thats no different than me robbing your house because you were stupid enough to leave it unlocked - your fault, not mine!”. Wow! Right to the point in black and white! Read some of the answers more carefully of “ethical camp” and you realise that you just called all us robbers.

 

[XBenX]

I have no ethics, I follow no religion, I break the law when I feel the benefit outweighs the potential risk, I dont believe in karma, I constantly lie for my own benefit, I accept ppl dont view me as a nice person, I value my close friends - where I apply a high level of ethics, Im essentially an anarchist and I fish.