Ok so i think its fair to say that of us hate insider traders, and find it the most heinous of crimes and wouldn't do it.
But would you consider it in the following situations:
You need money for an operation for yourself which is life critical: Either potentially fatal or significant quality of life (i.e. leg restructuring).
A friend/family needed such an operation, and you were not asked for money but were aware that the person was unable to meet the costs themselves. What if you were asked?
What if your house was going to be repossessed?
To put your kids through private school (assume the best school around)?
Personally, I adopt the approach that my morals should not influence to the extent of life and death, other people. The rest are the price you pay for sleeping soundly at night.
I'd do what had to be done to make sure family/friends were safe/alive..
You're separating moral principles from utility. Doing dishonest things is always wrong. One of the problems posed to us in ethics 101 was the following:
A trolley (i.e. in British English a tram) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
Anyone would kill the one person. Heres where things become a bit more interesting:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.
I think the best way to approach these problems is to imagine that every participant is a relative of yours, or someone you loved.
The best way to go about it is to kill the fat people
I agree with Bears
Thanks for breaking that one down for us bears. Really subtle observation.
Fat people are generally pretty hard to push, plus there's a risk he will push you instead
"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"
I'd consider pushing 'em...greater good. Assuming I wouldn't, y'know, go to prison for life or anything.
"A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor."
Not far from the first scenario, but for some reason this one crosses the line for me. Greater good? Yes. Totally messed up? Yes, as is the first one. Probably just have seen one too many creepy doctor horror movies.
Aspirant: The reason its different is because you're answering based off of psychology and emotions and not principle.
You should. But youre still killing an innocent man.
It's like the Hitler question: knowing then what we know now, would you kill him. YES, I would. That's the only good thing about the movie 'Inglorious Bastards', it's the one movie where Hitler gets it.
These types of scenarios are always framed as a Catch-22 to pimp utilitarianism/people are inherently selfish (thus, flawed). They always present a binary choice, which runs contrary to the real world. What about other variables? Why did this situation happen? Could anything have prevented it, etc.?
Troof.
To address trazer's original question: talking about morality is plain retarded. Moral comprises of made-up rules, same as religion. It is neither natural, biological, Darwinian, nor normal. It is as alien and insane to me as any random concept you would pick out of, let's say, the Quran. And in terms of your original question/example for insider trading, I would fucking do it no matter if I need the money for a leg surgery or to get some blond shallow bimbo I've got a boner for.
In the situation with the doctor it's a definite no. Fuck sick people, they shouldn't have been destroying their lungs by smoking/huffing glue, destroying their livers by eating fatty foods and chasing their vicodins with a glass of wine, destroying their hearts with uncontrolled stress, etc etc.
Everyone has the internal organs they deserve - a single mild transgression against one's own health wouldn't have failed their organs, it is the lifetime of bad habits. Why the fuck should someone else have to pay for their mistakes with his/her life?
Voluptas sit aperiam culpa consequuntur excepturi facere. Dolores facere hic enim. Nam quia distinctio unde unde quae. Dolores quia in aut tenetur. Et non modi sit minima odio.
Sunt ratione ex voluptatem sed. Doloribus id placeat ut dolore animi et. Nihil nemo culpa aut rerum reprehenderit. Omnis rerum et explicabo doloremque sunt et repellendus dolores. Debitis ut dolores natus reiciendis et aliquam voluptatem.
Rerum sunt vel quasi nostrum sit ea aliquid dolore. Ipsa nesciunt mollitia nostrum qui. Autem aliquam placeat esse nihil tempore quae sint. Dignissimos rerum voluptas minus in ut corrupti quia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...