The blog entry of "Many see President Obama as off the mark with Oil Speech" has morphed into a philosophical debate of moral fortitude. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines morality as (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/):
- Descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
- Some other group, such as religion, or
- Accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
- Some other group, such as religion, or
- Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
While I believe in allowing Free Market forces to work unabated by regulations, I do recognize that Free Will and the lack of a common moral fortitude creates challenges for Free Market Forces. A Anonymous commenter mentioned that "Since we all have a different idea of what morality is, those with opposing morals can still carry them with fortitude, regulations are always necessary" and when on to pose the question of "And you mean your morals, correct?" James Rachels, in his book The Elements of Moral Philosophy, attempts to define morality by quoting Socrates, from Plato's Republic, "We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live."
Rachels goes on in the book to discuss Moral Relativism in regards that cultures differ as much as their moral standards do. "Should we eat the bodies of the dead or burn them?" Rachels posed. To which Rachels responds with, "If you were Greek, one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you were a Callatian, the opposite would seem equally certain." Now, does this say in the business world a standard of universal morality cannot be established? Are we not establishing those moral standards via regulations? If that is the case, why not remove the regulations while leaving the morality established by them in place?
So use regulation to establish moral guidelines and actions and once that is done remove the regulations and let morality control? Is that what you are proposing? So what happens to those of use who didn't agree with the regulation in the first place and didn't change morally because we feel there is nothing to change? Won't we revert back to our old behaviors immediately with a lack of restriction/regulation? Isn't the regulation necessary to maintain a standard, not just to create one?
ReplyDeleteWhen the outcome of your immoral actions are not visible to you just how guilty are you going to feel if you do something immoral? If I set up a ponzi to steal some woman’s money in California who I’ve never met and will never meet and it causes her to lose her life savings, am I really going to feel that guilty about it while laying on the beach in St. Barts. Or will I feel guilty about watching a yacht race while the gulf coast of the USA rots away in fetid oil residue? Morality is most prevalent when the lack of it affects something you can see, feel, hear and understand. If the effect is “out of sight, out of mind”, the incentive to be moral drops off dramatically.
ReplyDeleteHistory has proven this. Therefore, regulations and overwhelming punishments for breach of those regulations are required to force people to be "moral". The reason is simple. If I run a mining business that uses cyanide to leach the gold out of ore and my analyst tells me it's cheaper to just let the cyanide run off down a stream and pay the "penalties" than it is to reprocess that cyanide for future use, as a business man, I consider that decision evident - let the cyanide run off. Even if it kills fish, wildlife and people. That's because my job isn't to care about the wildlife, they're not shareholders. My job is to make the most money possible for my investors.
Thus, greed overwhelms morality and what is a good decision for business becomes a bad decision for society. This is the primary reason for regulation.
If the morality established by regulations will continue after the regulations are removed, why remove them at all? What harm is there in regulations exisiting if people, guided by this overriding morality will follow them anyways? They wouldn't be an impediment because people would follow them or adhere to the same moral standards whether they were there or not.
ReplyDeleteThe question is: Is it feasible for regulations to establish a moral guideline and once established remove the regulatory agency? The fines and penalties still remain as, with every other moral guideline, consequences for breaking them. To ensure that moral guidelines are maintained the fines need to be substantial.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Corporations live on without guilt. Those that lead the Corporations may or may not feel guilty for their actions which is, as I agree with Kevin, why Free Market struggles in application.
ReplyDeleteI think you answered your own question. If you still need to have fines and penalties an agency is still needed. One, to enforce those things. Who else would have authority to? Second, the simple need of having them means that not everyone has changed their behavior to match the desired behavior the agency was trying to create.
ReplyDeleteI think Toph & Anon have it right, there is no moral absolute. Therefore, since corporations don't have consciences, they must be governed - constantly.
ReplyDeleteAnd as the Anon pointed out, if the behavior changes to fall in line with the regulations, what's wrong with keeping the regulations after the behavior changes. It's no more intrusive than not having the regulations.
Therefore, the argument that regulations hinder economic growth is flawed. It would appear that morality hinders economic growth in the free-market argument. Since the argument is that regulations are required to manage moral behavior and without them, immoral behavior will occur.
So the enemy isn't regulation - it's man, and our immoral actions. Again, right back to the arguments against communism and the fatal flaw therein. Without moral absolutism, these theories fall apart so there's no point in arguing them or striving for them.
(Late to the debate ... but here goes ... apologies for the rambling ...)
DeleteAnd the regulators must be monitored, lest they abuse their authority (whether there is palm-greasing or they are on a White House witch hunt). Mankind can never purge its wayward ways, yet we spin rationalizations for our actions. This tells me we know the extent of our guilt; suppressing and hiding that guilt is another thing altogether. Regulations are often written after the damage is done. Once on the books, it's enforceable, again, after the fact. If you want to promote morality, you have to start at the heart, and the right behavior (all the attributes we value, kindness, compassion, generosity, etc.) become a natural outpouring of a right heart. Humanism and disciples of Christ share one common belief ... all things are possible. But for the disciples, the belief extends to state "through Jesus Christ." Cure the problem of the heart, and the rest will follow. All other efforts, numerous social engineering programs, reforms and the like, layered one upon the other, will never solve the social ills, apart from God. If you want blessings in your family, in your culture, in your bank account (the least important), then work within God's will. There is nothing objectionable in Jesus' teachings. And there is nothing in God's will that is not good for our families and culture. Love one another. Why is that hard for people to embrace?
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI agree that man's free will, greed and gluttony lead to moral perversion. It is unfortunate but we have to admit that Congress and other government officials over regulate our business world. I have attempted to read the 2000+ pages of the finance reform bill.
It is pretty dry stuff. I was not suprised with Dodd said over the weekend that, sounds eerily like Pelosi a few months back, "we will have to wait see until after it is passed to know what is really in the bill." Doesn't this frighten anyone that our Congress and likely our President are enacting laws without reading and understanding them? Perhaps this has been business as usual but why can the Founding Fathers write a framework of government on three huge sheets of paper and the Civil Rights Act is written in less then 20 pages but health care, energy and finance policies are over 2000 pages?
Doesn't this frighten anyone that our Congress and likely our President are enacting laws without reading and understanding them?
ReplyDeleteDo you expect senator's and representatives to sit and read every bill they sign? You understand they can be signing legislation for several bills in a day, every week? That's 2000+ pages for one bill and you want them to do that and only that? You understand that it sounds like you want MORE gridlock, not less right?
And the reason why legislation gets more complicated is that the world gets more complicated and even more litigious.
That's not due to parties or government but due to our legal system and the complexities of the world we live in. I'm not at all surprised the financial bill is 2000 pages. My college finance texts were easily triple that and those were low level texts by comparison to what derivatives are.
This isn't the 1950's. We shouldn't expect things to be simple ever again. The world has gotten too small and busy for that.
Kevin – I understand that Congress votes on a lot of bills while in session and to read every single one of them is an extremely challenging but when big pieces of reform like TARP, Stimulus, Health Care and Finance reform comes to vote I do expect them to read and understand the bill in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteLegal jargon and our “sue happy “society has led staffers to write bills that consume ungodly number of pages. Besides the purpose of the super majority is to create gridlock and slow the process down. Allow the Senators to pause and give thought to the bill before them. Instead the current Senate is compelled to rush everything through without the proper debate, compromise and attentiveness expected of them. Why might this be?
Yes the world has gone global and more interconnected but that does not mean we cannot demand legislation that is simple to read and understand without the legal jargon that over complicates it.
"I understand that Congress votes on a lot of bills while in session and to read every single one of them is an extremely challenging but when big pieces of reform like TARP, Stimulus, Health Care and Finance reform comes to vote I do expect them to read and understand the bill in its entirety."
ReplyDeleteWhy, what is in the details that a high level synopsis from your team can't convey? I see that as a waste of time.
"Legal jargon and our “sue happy “society has led staffers to write bills that consume ungodly number of pages."
Legal jargon has nothing to do with the number of pages. Legal jargon, as you call it, is used in legislation to try to minimize lawsuits and challenges.
And the reason there is no debate because there can be no consensus. No matter how long the debate, the republicans will fight everything because any success is seen as a victory for Obama and they can't abide that. The same is true when Republicans are in office and democrats fight everything. The problem isn't length of legislation or lack of debate the problem is the political fringes. When parties are beholden to the fringes like the tea party, debate is worthless and moveover, meaningless bluster to appease the party base. What's the point?
"Yes the world has gone global and more interconnected but that does not mean we cannot demand legislation that is simple to read and understand without the legal jargon that over complicates it."
And the primary reason most American's can't understand legislation has more to do with the poor educations most American's have than with the complexity of the language being used. The fact that most american's have the vocabulary of a 9th grader isn't the fault of the lawyers who write the laws, it's the fault of the citizens who choose to remain uneducated. If you are reading a bill, get out your dictionary and learn the words their using. And more importantly understand WHY they are using the words they are using.
You seem to dislike legal "jargon" but what you fail to understand is that it is a necessity in legislation to give clarity. Word choice, word placement, phrasing, etc all have meaning in the interpretation. The lack of comprehensive "legal jargon" in the constitution is one of the reasons it's been adjudicated so many times. So if you want to avoid judicial activism you should be an advocate of legal jargon, not a detractor.