Ok. Ethics and morality are oxymoronic when their usage is synonymous. However, true ethics would not need to include the set that contains morals.

I think incongruity would happen more often with code based morals than with ethics. Ethics have a rational basis when evaluated as economic opportunity costs.

I would have to ask, which economic theory is incongruous with human nature? If we consider that value is subjective, then anything induced to the point of a private profit seeking motive could be interpreted as a form of rational behavior.

Isn't ethics concerned with human excellence and right living? If so, what exactly are you left with if you strip out morality?

And really speaking, profitability is merely a substitute for good and unprofitability a substitute for bad, and what is claimed to be amorality is really just a morality based on the assumption that the acquisition of material wealth is the summum bonum of human existence. All activity that furthers said acquisition is deemed good, that which doesn't, such as human subsistence, is deemed irrelevant.

These sorts of values are strictly based on utility and there is no room whatsoever for existential or inherent value. The only value a human being has in this morality is what he or she can be sold for in the marketplace. Is it any wonder then that drug and arms trafficking continues to plague human society, among other problems? No, it isn't. Those who profess to be leaders won't put a stop to it because it is too profitable and profitability is the bottom line.

As far as which economics I'm speaking of in particular, the UN System of National Accounts is the dominant model in the world, which can fairly be dubbed Western Capitalism, I suppose, but I think my criticism holds true regardless of whether we are speaking of Adam Smith, Marx, Keynes or Milton Friedman. All were/are materialists whose understanding of human nature left quite a lot to be desired, to say the least. In my opinion, anyway.

__________________
[B]Who [I]does[/I] vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson[/B]

I am not sure I understand your question. Do you mean, that if ethics is concerned with human excellence and right living, what is the purpose of morality?

Why do you think that a morality based on the pursuit of happiness would be unethical or immoral in a market economy?

No, I'm asking how can we decipher what human excellence and right living are, absent a morality that is grounded in an understanding of human nature?


No, I'm saying that a morality that is based on the assumption that the acquisition of material wealth is the zenith of human endeavor is deeply flawed.

Material wealth is finite, whereas human desire is limitless and can only be slaked with limitlessness. Happiness, my friend, does not come neatly packaged, waiting to be purchased in the marketplace. Which is not to say that markets have no place in human society, but rather, that a shallow understanding of happiness and human nature leaves us with a thirst that is never truly satisfied. More is increasingly less, despite our best efforts to prove otherwise.

__________________
[B]Who [I]does[/I] vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson[/B]

I thought that was what ethics were for. If we compare ethics to opportunity costs, it is apparent that rational choices can be made regardless of the current state of morality.

The pursuit of happiness means different things to different people. We have a bill of rights to help preserve the rights of individuals to pursue happiness. It is up to the individual to make the choices that are most conducive to their own equilibrium seeking tendencies.

The analogy of a free market economy to describe the balance of societal ethics has brought about a very interesting aspect of both. I'm so excited.

Greed.

Isn't this what my special project, (Thane), is concerned with? The connotation that greed in the pursuit of wealth is no different than greed in the pursuit of happiness may have been unintentional but there it is.

Would the greedy pursuit of happiness not result in chaos in a free market? I believe it just might. We are clever enough creatures to recognize the benefits of collusion in influence of the marketplace. It is easy for me to imagine say, some very conservative leaning folks colluding on a particular liberty to shift the balance of societal ethics. Sure. Why not? And of course, this would lead to the organization of the very progressive leaning folks colluding to shift the balance back again.

So why is the market not complete chaos already? Are we clever enough creatures to recognize that the balance could shift drastically enough to ruin us all completely? I think we might be. There is some evidence. We've implimented some rules - caps on the ends to prevent us spilling into chaos.

But on top of this layer of free market greed and collusion and shifting and pulling, is the constant of change - the one variable which can never be defined as zero; no matter how hard we try or how much we long for it or pray for it or meditate on it.

Thus, the necessity of a free market to begin with. Applying unchanging rules and laws to a society whose one constant is change is not simply impractical but simply not feasible. What are the other options?

__________________
"Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.” Jack Handy

I suppose that the main difference of greed when applied to the pursuit of capital or happiness, is that capital is usually a private good for private individuals. Happiness is a public good for anyone. In other words, pursuing the external public good (that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable) of happiness doesn't diminish anyone else's ability to pursue happiness. The pursuit of capital is subject to any economic policies of the state involved.

I tend to view code based morals as a form of arrested development.

How would society change if there were only ten laws on the books to follow?

What would the ethics of an ideal society be like?

Because they are thinking of short term gratification, and not calculating the long term cost.

(although sometimes, as in the case of very low-interest student loans, it actually makes financial sense to make the minimum payments, and invest the balance in higher interest-type savings)

__________________
[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=DarkGreen]"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin [/COLOR][/FONT]

It is an old cliche tha money doesn't buy happiness. As you are stating above- capito is a zero sum game, and happiness isn't. I rather think it is the opposite, in fact- the more the people around you are happy, the easier it is to persue your own happiness (and the converse is true, as I discover to my sorrow this summer, with two pairs of feuding neighbors).
In an ideal society no one's persuit of personal happiness would be impinged upon, unless it causes harm to another. That is a principle that is encoded in our constitution, but imperfectly executed. I doubt it can ever be perfectly executed, but it can be improved as long as we hold up the concept.

__________________
[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=DarkGreen]"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin [/COLOR][/FONT]

Exactly.

Have/are we becoming a society of people(s) whose ethics have become more focussed on instant gratification ?

It seems SO.

Not to mention the tax breaks you can get from repaying student loans. STILL, it's worth having them paid OFF. Another bill you don't have then :-)

__________________
[I]They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator. . . . Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature.[/I] - Romans 1:25-26

Use liberals artistic manipulation of logic and language against them.