secrets -are they moral and if so why?
Posted by admin on Jun.12, 2011, under Rich DVD
rich people have money strategies they keep secret. morally is this right or wrong?
That would speak to ownership in general, as secrets are nothing more than a sort of "mental property." If I happen across a fallen tree and a pointy rock and use that rock to make the tree into a canoe using nothing except my own labor and that rock, do I own the canoe? One could argue that because I did all of the work of transforming the tree into the canoe, the canoe is now solely mine and I am fre to do with it what I will. One could also argue that because I used materials that I had no claim to in the first place, I can’t possibly own anything resulting from it. General American consensus is that, through our work or the gifts of others who have done work, we can own property. Since the group consnsus is thus, there is an assumption that land ownership is ethical. Since morality has to be given to us by people who are allegedly authorities on the subject, it is typically considered moral too.
Mental property is much the same. As with physical property, one must make their own determination of whether they should be allowed exclusive ownership or not, but Americans, especially those who are rich and have secrets, will generally consider it both ethical and moral to have secrets, even if said secrets are ultimately exploiting others.
I personally fail to see a way that no property could work, and am grateful that our society at least allows people to change social status as opposed to some countries where one dies in the caste they were born into.
June 12th, 2011 on 7:57 am
I don’t believe that this is a question of morality; it only seems that way because they are keeping their ‘secrets’ hidden. If they were to reveal their secrets, then most people would still not be able to achieve what ‘rich’ people have already. If some type of instant strategy to get rich were to arise, many people would not have the dexterity or mental endurance to actually achieve that goal. No- secrets are not immoral. Everybody has secrets.
References :
June 12th, 2011 on 8:16 am
Right. Everyone is entitled to trade secrets. It’s like a carpenter knowing how to work wood and make beautiful furniture – that’s a "secret," too. Same thing with stock trading or other "rich people" "secrets."
Also, just because you know the secret doesn’t automatically mean that you’re gonna get rich. There’s a lot of hard work that goes into making money from a certain skill or "secret."
References :
June 12th, 2011 on 8:34 am
There is a line to draw, as in every situation. Sometimes we are entitled secrets and some things most be told if they impact the people hearing this secret. That impact must significantly outweigh the benefit to keeping it secret. Business strategies are only immoral to be secret, if they impact others more significantly than the benefit of earning this money. Think of this as a modified philosophy of Singer, only dealing with secrets
References :
June 12th, 2011 on 9:11 am
This is interesting.
Ok we have the secrete relative to the person that knows.
Relative to those that do not know.
Relative to the concept of justice implicit or explicit.
Relative the idea of reality objective and subjective.
Hmmm
lets see
The is are secrets moral?
Well we find examples where it is treated thus yes.
For instance at the political level most societies form governments that attempt to keep secret certain technological Information and international subterfuge techniques.
We also find at a social level some "secretes" a lose term, is as you have pointed out, tactical methods that are implicitly apparent but not explicitly defined as a part of culture and sub-culture.
Shall we say unspoken rules of a given social dynamic, if you will.
Also we have secretes as it relates to the individual and the society with regards to integrity, credibility, and implied or explicit social contracts with regards to a system of justice.
Anthropological survey has yet to reveal a society that did not value accurate knowledge more so than it valued deceit at least with respect to social justice and individual moral obligation.
So even though we quickly learn to lie, it seems we are socially conditioned to deem this undesirable and to be avoided.
Let see.
what else?
Ah yes, hypothetical withholding of information for the sake of morality.
For example, if you are in nazi germany which is the most moral decision, to lie about the jews you are harboring or to deliberately with hold or deceive information that would in all probability lead to the capture, mistreatment, and eventual death of those jews?
So you have that conflict of values that can be examined, and I think this is perhaps (though not to such an extreme degree) our most familiar dilemma with secretes vs honesty as it relates to ethics.
Where most individuals have been in the uncomfortable situations where they have information that may potentially cause emotional turmoil to one whom we are concerned for and whose well being we care after.
That we have been forced to decide if it might not be better to keep that information from them, be it often in some part for fear of how we will be perceived for our relation to it, or that we should be honest lest the information and that you knew come to light at some other time and again that person is hurt not only be the information but by a violation by you of there trust.
Sigh….
Um I think that about covers the spectrum of secretes and how they relate to morality.
While I have me personal convictions in this regard, I will, admittedly, say that it is not always easy to determine if there is ethical merit in with holding truth.
References :
Interesting question thanks for the brain snack
June 12th, 2011 on 9:45 am
That would speak to ownership in general, as secrets are nothing more than a sort of "mental property." If I happen across a fallen tree and a pointy rock and use that rock to make the tree into a canoe using nothing except my own labor and that rock, do I own the canoe? One could argue that because I did all of the work of transforming the tree into the canoe, the canoe is now solely mine and I am fre to do with it what I will. One could also argue that because I used materials that I had no claim to in the first place, I can’t possibly own anything resulting from it. General American consensus is that, through our work or the gifts of others who have done work, we can own property. Since the group consnsus is thus, there is an assumption that land ownership is ethical. Since morality has to be given to us by people who are allegedly authorities on the subject, it is typically considered moral too.
Mental property is much the same. As with physical property, one must make their own determination of whether they should be allowed exclusive ownership or not, but Americans, especially those who are rich and have secrets, will generally consider it both ethical and moral to have secrets, even if said secrets are ultimately exploiting others.
I personally fail to see a way that no property could work, and am grateful that our society at least allows people to change social status as opposed to some countries where one dies in the caste they were born into.
References :