Josef K wrote:

ubercat wrote:If you're an ethical person, you bring it with you to work. Ethics don't start and stop when you cross a threshold.

Perhaps you really aren't an ethical person.

I find it incredibly difficult to forget my ethics, and even more difficult to compromise my morals for fucking money.

How far do you take your ethics? Would you consider it unethical to allow your taxes to be used for the purchase of armaments?

come on, now. that's not even in the same ballpark. what the gov't does with my tax money is really not up to me. It's my responsibility to pay the pittance they get so that I don't have to deal with the audit. although I don't make enough where they'd wanna come after me, anyway.

I've yet to have a job I couldn't get behind ethically. It's non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. I don't think this applies to everyone's case, of course (like the nike story (btw-could your friend get his 3 year old a job at nike? it'd up the income! (I kid))) I feel fortunate that I haven't had a job that made me question my own ethics. not everyone has that luxury, though.

I don't think property ownership or settling down is the answer. it's barely an answer. it doesn't solve anything, it just gives you a new set of circumstances. I just recently bought my first piece of land (in India, no less! (wtf)) with my brother and my cousin, but it has yet to change my day to day. I guess it's because it's so far removed from me. I digress.

I still try to live like an artist an an honest person as much as I can. I do so cheaply and frugally and am much happier for it. I don't think that investing in an unknown (like property or marriage) will change the way I want to actually enjoy living. I hope that when I do go that route it just makes life different in a positive way and not a negative one.



gluck.

Josef K wrote:How far do you take your ethics? Would you consider it unethical to allow your taxes to be used for the purchase of armaments?

No, I wouldn't/don't.

Alcohol and tobacco companies targeting teens? Yes, that's unethical.

Code:

You cannot find a single local job just to tide you over until a non-govt.-surveillance job comes along?

No DEA, but you'll gladly spy on people? And fly several times a month to do so?

Scary and wasteful, you would be, if you took the job.

I would do it.
When I was getting ready to graduate I was recruited by naval research. I applied and "got" the job, junior aerospace robotics engineer. I was "hired" and would have relocated to dc and taken the job immediately. I mean seriously that is some top notch science and engineering; it was an amazing opportunity. Unfortunately getting "hired" was the easy part and I did not get clearance. After a long (6 months) investigation (the whole sitting outside my house in a van thing; the whole asking my neighbors about me; etc) the fbi guys almost got me fired and embarrassed me in front of important international dignitaries. About a month later I got a letter saying I was denied security clearance for all time eternally. Now I figure I'm on their radar but whatever I don't do anything illegal.
I thought I was on the no fly list but I flew last year with no problem so that's lucky.

Anyway I guess what I'm saying is that I would totally have taken that job (it was engineering spy satellites) if I had the clearance. And that was DoD, worse than the DEA. I'm upset that I missed my chance to do it. You can always quit if you don't agree with something. So go for it.

Josef K wrote:Why is working for the DEA such a no no?

no one likes a snitch.

kerble wrote:

Josef K wrote:Why is working for the DEA such a no no?

no one likes a snitch.

And most of us are using homeopathic remedies for the doldrums.

ubercat wrote:

kerble wrote:

Josef K wrote:Why is working for the DEA such a no no?

no one likes a snitch.

And most of us are using homeopathic remedies for the doldrums.

seriously, without the lucky cabbage, I'd be even more of a spaz.

fuck off! Narcs.

The Code Is Almighty wrote:Thanks again, sincerely. Whatever I write here isn't me trying to be a dick.

Then you sure fooled me.

You will be dead probably 50 years from now. Maybe 60.

Between now and then the one thing that you will probably spend more time than any other is the work that you do. If not the top, then close to it.

Ethics shouldn't represent the minimum standard to be met in deciding what to do with your life's work. Ethics should be the fundamental drive behind that decision. If not, what the hell are you really doing with your life? I'm not asking this from a judgment perspective - it's a question of the purpose of your life. When your life is over and you look back on it, what do you want to say you've done with your drive, gifts and talents?

As for the strict subsistence argument being the reason to work for Nike - that's bullshit.

= Justin

burun wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:I actually posted pretty much the same thing, but deleted the post like 2 minutes later because I didn't want to open up a big can of worms.

Why be different from like 90% of the people here?

I am sure we can sustain an intelligent conversation about this.

I live in hope.

You're right, I just didn't want to derail the thread from Code's intended purpose, right from Page 1. But now we're on Page 2, so here goes:

Ethics is defined as a codified set of moral laws governing behavior and goals. Some people feel that getting married, having kids, owning property, etc. are more than just lifestyle choices. These accomplishments are often regarded as obligations in leading a moral life. Religion usually seems to be the basis for these kinds of beliefs. In the book of Genesis, for example, God tells Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it". However these ideals are not necessarily dependent upon religious belief. Many people consider home ownership and the raising of a family as important milestones in life that indicate adult responsibility and largely determine our importance as individuals. Do you feel you have an ethical obligation to live this kind of lifestyle?

Raising a family is indeed a beautiful thing. It contributes to society in the most fundamental way. However, the major obligations that go along with it can cause a great deal of pressure, leading into conflict and compromise within one's own ethical code. For example, I may refuse to work for a company that employs children in sweatshops for any part of its manufacturing chain, but I have to support my family during the recession. My work experience is in retail store management but in my community, the local Wal-Mart is the largest retail employer and none of the smaller businesses are offering the wage I would require to support my family, make my monthly bills, etc. Pulling up stakes and moving to another town is not really a viable option for economic reasons, so I might consider myself forced to compromise my personal ethics and do something that I swore I never would: taking the job at Wal-mart and thereby support child abuse and the economic exploitation of others.

Now I'm not saying that people who raise families are generally more prone to ethical compromise. I'm just pointing out that having dependents and other major economic obligations can place a person in a situation where they have to prioritize and make tough choices. The attendant responsibilities of family life are often cited as reasons for making less-than-ideal employment choices for economic reasons. You may find yourself indirectly contributing to the enslavement of somebody's kids halfway around the world, to ensure the safety, comfort and education of your own children. Such is life in this complicated world. On the other hand, the alternative of eschewing challenges like raising a family, owning property or starting a business, for the primary reason of avoiding personal hardship or moral challenge, seems to be rather cowardly and pathetic.