So yesterday I saw something about the value of ethics. Spoiler: Open this if you care If you have ethics your value =1 If you are intelligent, add a zero and your value would =10 You are rich, add another zero and your value is now =100 Above all else, if you are also beautiful add another zero which makes your value now =1000 However if you lose that 1, which corresponds to ethics, then all that would be left would be zeroes. So in the end without ethics or morality, there is nothing left except corruptions and depravity. Whats your take on this?
Someone who eats virgins (women) for breakfast cant have ethics I dont remember just took a screenshot
Sounds like loser talk that makes them feel good for not being rich and beautiful. Avoid whoever told you that or whichever site it's on. The only value of ethics is seen in the Prisoner Dilemma.
well, based on that if you lose ethics you could also ended up with nothing if the person is not intelligent, rich, nor beautiful. so, does a person with nothing in him still represent corruption and depravity?
My take on this is that you cant always be ethically or morally right. You just have to do what has to be done
what is moral and ethic on first place? is our value universal? or it just assumption? think again~ table manner human experiment on human badumtess~ also if someone is immoral~ is that mean it also have no ethic? and vice versa~ last point can those two make you survive? those two are relative IMO~ meh~ even this lazy cat can see that~
The biggest problem with this is: what is value? It never defined it. If it is societal value, then this fails. As many people would consider Stalin or Hitler to be amoral (whether it's true or not is a matter for debate.) However, they served roles in their society and were of value. Also, the intelligence value is horseshit. If you want intelligence to correspond to value, then that person needs to be in a position where intelligence is of value. If said intelligent person is shoveling muck into a pile the rest of his life, then his intelligence would be worthless.
who wrote that is retarded.... ethics: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation it's doesn't mean you are good or bad just because you have ethics or not....
Not to mention that it's not a case of having or not having them, but having different ethics from the accepted norm and getting judged for that. Every human being has some form of ethics, morality and a different way of judging these. Just like suicide bombers are seen as horrible beings to one group, whereas to another it's the pinnacle of selflessness for the cause.
This reminds me of koans. It's not about the quantitative data, but the logical answer. Stupid koans, not that koans are stupid, but that koans are meant to convey the close-mindedness of individuals, but other than that, they don't make much sense. I digress. I am neutral on the ethics and moral thing, which is the most hated spot since it's mostly indifferent or undecided. I guess I would go with agreeing if only the topic was worth something, but I don't know what it is worth.
I think it's an interesting idea. Everyone has their own ethics and morals, and we abide by what we think is right. The moment we start going against what we believe to be right, then our value as human beings becomes 0... I like this, it's a nice way of viewing it.
My take is that was a poor ugly stupid guy that wants to make himself good. The only true power in this worls is money! The world revolve around money,no money no power,so as mr.krabs says : money money money money money money money money money money