OCCUPY WALL STREET

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

hmn. That in it's self is an code of ethics. which, is: a form of decided morality. Deciding not to be judgemental is a moral decision, based on what you (general) hold to be the most important attributes to live by, which you (Ender) listed for yourself and wish others to adopt....

I don't disagree with what you wish to come about, but one's morals could dictate non-judgement without being smug or dogmatic.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

hmn. That in it's self is an code of ethics. which, is: a form of decided morality. Deciding not to be judgemental is a moral decision, based on what you (general) hold to be the most important attributes to live by, which you (Ender) listed for yourself and wish others to adopt....

I don't disagree with what you wish to come about, but one's morals could dictate non-judgement without being smug or dogmatic.

If we put the destruction of homo sapiens sapiens on one side of the scale and the continued existence of that species on the other side of the scale, then yes we can certainly call it a code of ethics. I also see it as efficiency. If we want the species to continue in such a way that there is steady technological/scientific and economic progress, then we also have to realise that social progress must come with it, for oppression does not attain any of these things in an efficient way for the long run. History has told us this over and over again.

In that case, there is really a distinction to be made between this code of ethics which, one could argue, comes down to efficiency, and the traditional definitions of morality which places morality/the act of being moral itself as the objective. We should also note that there is a distinct way in which traditional morality holds anything which opposes it, and that's what I was getting at in the last post.

Traditionally (when we consider the moral systems of the late Romans or the Christians, though particularly of the Christians), when one is a "moral being" one then has a "moral/divine/whatever" right to accuse a supposedly "immoral" being of being just that. This accomplishes absolutely nothing and becomes a pointless argument of "no you!" ad nauseum. By calling for greater "morality" within society, we are only calling for another man-made system that should not be questioned. We should be doing precisely the opposite, and asking society to actually think and analyze why they think the Occupy Wall Street movement is made up of "horrid commies omg," and why they refuse to do anything when the government and government-affiliated bankers continue to abuse the common person. Ask them to think outside what they consider "moral" and "immoral." Instead of asking a person to follow a "moral compass," it demands that people think for themselves.

[Ciaran]

There is no doubt that there is need for reform of the banking system. However, the "Platform" / "Declaration" of this movement (as noted in the OP) reads to me like something that an emotional teenager would write.

It's trying to be all things to all people (well, all people with the exception bankers) and, furthermore, is scapegoating the banking sectors for many universal problems. These issues were in existence long before the modern banking system and will continue to exist long after the current banking system is redundant.

Aspects of the banking system may facilitate inhumanity (i.e. fundings of ammunition manufacturers etc) but it's not the driver of inhumanity.


Investors (equity and bondholders) need to take the pain - they have done so and are continuing to do so as this financial crisis evolves. However, some of us as individuals need to accept responsibility for our indebtedness too .... yes, a financial institution may have offered us a large mortgage that we would struggle to pay even if the good times lasted and, yes, we may have been offered significant amounts of unsecured credit. However, we are adults and need to accept the decisions we made and the risks that we have taken.