Is Conscience a Hindrance to Worldly Success?

[Random]

It seems to me that the richest and most powerful people in the world lack a moral compass, what is commonly called a 'conscience'.

In pursuit of monetary 'profit' and social 'status' any sort of moral deviance seems to be quite acceptable these days because monetary profit and social status gained at all costs by whatever means are easily understood motivations that the 'average man', ie. the public, can readily grasp and accept.

The people who are the richest, most powerful and influential in the world seem to me to view conscience is a big hindrance to success, instead of a worthwhile virtue. They knowingly and deliberately abandon their moral compass because they regard it as an unnatural restriction, an obstacle that makes getting what they want more difficult.

Conscience and altruism seem to me to be intrinsically linked, so a rejection of one is a de facto rejection of the other: indeed, this is what we're seeing in modern politics with the right-wing 'conservatives' and so-called 'libertarians', especially those to the extreme right heavily influenced by Ayn Rand (who was not a philosopher, IMO).

I arrived at this question comparing Plato and his 'Philosopher Kings' ideal of an elite ruling class to the modern transnational 'globalism' of the corporations we are seeing.

So, is conscience a hindrance to success in this world?

For the sake of discussion, I will define success as material, worldly success: wealth.

Is conscience an obstacle that makes getting what you want in life more difficult?

If so, please explain your position and whether it entails an embrace of all things amoral, and a rejection of altruism also.

If not, please explain how conscience is not a hindrance to worldly success.

Further, if in your opinion having a conscience is actually beneficial to achieving one's goals in life, that it is a virtue, then please explain how that works in the real world if you want to be successful.

This is not a questionnaire, so any and all comments / views are appreciated.

 

[Straw Dog]

I think it depends on the economic model used. Some systems will reward a lack of conscience while other systems may reward directly helping others and there could also be something in-between.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There are no hard and fast rules. However, looking at it from the perspective that having opportunites, situations, and options assists in the accumulation of wealth, then having less scruples can provide you with more opportunities, situations, and options to take advantage of.

 

[TommyDar]

Not always. It is relatively dependent on the situation.

For example, let's say that we have two companies in the grocery industry. Company "A" makes a quality product, it tries to operate ethically to ensure their produce is safe to eat, pay their workers well, and as a result they have to charge a little more. Company "B" cut corners wherever possible but out to move more product, so they set the price of their goods lower.

Company "B" can make money in the short term. But after some time, when people are sick of their products, and no one wants to work in the factory, they will lose money for things like lawsuits. In fact, with Company "A" they will have repeat business for years to come.

This is just one example of how, if you help others, you can sometimes help yourself.

 

[Sir Doom]

I believe this clip has some relevance to the topic at hand. Not that it is the way things are done in our current economic climate, but it should be in my oh so humble opinion.

[youtube]CemLiSI5ox8[/youtube]
Governing Dynamics: Ignore the Blond - A Beautiful Mind (3/11) Movie CLIP (2001) HD - YouTube

 

[Revoltingest]

Having a conscience helps me secure credit from contractors.
(They know I'll pay in full.)

 

[WyattDerp]

Maybe in some areas, but in other ways it can also be a great motivator. I'd even say greed only goes so far, ideals and passions can go anywhere.

Not to mention something that having a conscience differentiates you from piranhas and poodles, which in turn can provide better long-term opportunities. (just not in places where piranhas and poodles are sought for, obviously ^^)

 

[Sunstone]

I've known some conscientious people who were very successful, albeit not without making the occasional compromise -- especially before they had risen to the top of the heap. I've also known some people who were more or less psychopaths or sociopaths who were very successful. So, I don't think there's any hard and fast rule here. But as one executive said to me, "Morals are one factor to consider, among many factors, and not always the determinate factor."

 

[crossfire]

It seems to me that the richest and most powerful people in the world lack a moral compass, what is commonly called a 'conscience'.

Is your conscience bothering you over your sweeping generalization?

Conscience and altruism seem to me to be intrinsically linked, so a rejection of one is a de facto rejection of the other:

Disagree. Conscience is often a sense of shame or regret over actions or lack thereof after the fact (superego informing the ego) whereas altruism an entirely different mechanism entirely, an act of selflessness.

indeed, this is what we're seeing in modern politics with the right-wing 'conservatives' and so-called 'libertarians', especially those to the extreme right heavily influenced by Ayn Rand (who was not a philosopher, IMO).

I would say this is a false projection coming from your own mind.
Here's an Ayn Rand quote from Atlas Shrugged

I arrived at this question comparing Plato and his 'Philosopher Kings' ideal of an elite ruling class to the modern transnational 'globalism' of the corporations we are seeing.

Now I agree with you that there might be a link between elitism and a lack of compassion/altruism.

So, is conscience a hindrance to success in this world?

For the sake of discussion, I will define success as material, worldly success: wealth.

LOL! I wouldn't measure success in this manner. But heck, I'm just one of those silly libertarians, so what do I know?

Is conscience an obstacle that makes getting what you want in life more difficult?

It depends on what you want. If your measure of success is a selfish one like having a well-functioning mind, then conscience is a virtue. Altruism is also a virtue. Elitism is not a virtue, as it disconnects you from what is really going on by giving yourself permission to project your flawed view of reality on reality, obscuring it.

 

[Sunstone]

Ayn Rand (who was not a philosopher, IMO).

She was pretty much juvenile in both her drama queen language and her typically half-baked ideas. But other than that, she had as much right to call herself a philosopher as anyone who never mastered the discipline.

 

[Innominate]

Given that this is a philosophical discussion, I don't care what you call a term, as long as it's well-defined. In this discussion, the agreed definition for (worldly) success is the acquisition of monetary wealth.

As TommyDar pointed out, you can acquire wealth by slighting people, deception, cutting corners, and all of the like and become very powerful and wealthy. You can also acquire wealth by conducting business in a manner that includes a more healthy regard for the consumers, as well.

In the interest of staying on the same page, I'll presume that by conscience, we mean the capacity for empathy and regret for actions performed with malicious intent. Coming from someone with impaired empathy and regret, I would venture to say that if I wanted to acquire wealth, it would be easier without a conscience. I would take this position because if you lack empathy and regret, you can easily slight people, manipulate them, and practice deception towards others for the benefit of yourself.

As stated a few times now, gaining wealth is possible with a conscience, but there are fewer paths to take. Let's make it simple..
Paths to wealth acquisition:
-ones that involve malice for personal gain: a, b, c
-ones that do not involve malice for personal gain: d, e, f
Where someone with a conscience normally only takes paths a, b, and c, someone without can both take advantage of the first three and the latter three (d, e, and f) as (s)he sees fit.

 

[Sir Doom]

As stated a few times now, gaining wealth is possible with a conscience, but there are fewer paths to take. Let's make it simple..
Paths to wealth acquisition:
-ones that involve malice for personal gain: a, b, c
-ones that do not involve malice for personal gain: d, e, f
Where someone with a conscience normally only takes paths a, b, and c, someone without can both take advantage of the first three and the latter three (d, e, and f) as (s)he sees fit.

I would have to say there are d's, e's and f's that are closed to the person who has no conscience. Unscrupulous behavior is typically hidden because the rewards of public view are mistrust and exclusion. If it is the very first unethical thing you've done, it looks as you describe it above. But one cannot live their life this way without someone noticing. And those that notice will NOT reward that sort of behavior. Unless of course that's what they are looking for which is often the case. I just don't think its quite as cut and dry as you are describing it here.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that the richest and most powerful people in the world lack a moral compass, what is commonly called a 'conscience'.

In business, I find that people of all income & wealth levels can be either moral or amoral. Money doesn't seem to make people better or worse.

In pursuit of monetary 'profit' and social 'status' any sort of moral deviance seems to be quite acceptable these days because monetary profit and social status gained at all costs by whatever means are easily understood motivations that the 'average man', ie. the public, can readily grasp and accept.

Tis the 'progressives' & altruists whom I hear shouting "By any means necessary!" to achieve their goals, ready to use violence & fraud
to serve their agenda. A dirt bag is a dirt bag, no matter how much/little money he has, or what side of the political fence he's on.

The people who are the richest, most powerful and influential in the world seem to me to view conscience is a big hindrance to success, instead of a worthwhile virtue. They knowingly and deliberately abandon their moral compass because they regard it as an unnatural restriction, an obstacle that makes getting what they want more difficult.

How many of the ultra rich have you discussed this issue with to arrive at this conclusion?

Conscience and altruism seem to me to be intrinsically linked, so a rejection of one is a de facto rejection of the other....

Hogwash.

indeed, this is what we're seeing in modern politics with the right-wing 'conservatives' and so-called 'libertarians', especially those to the extreme right heavily influenced by Ayn Rand (who was not a philosopher, IMO).

You don't believe that we libertarians have a conscience?
Pray tell...what pious & vaunted political persuasion are you, that you may look down upon me with such scorn?

This is not a questionnaire, so any and all comments / views are appreciated.

I'd say you have a real animosity problem with the wealthy, conservatives, libertarians, & successful people in general.

 

[Innominate]

I would have to say there are d's, e's and f's that are closed to the person who has no conscience.

Are they? Psychopaths are extremely good liars--able to conceal their true intentions extremely well. It would seem to me that someone like that would go for whatever path gets them the farthest. If that involves malice, they won't regret it. If it involves no malice, there isn't a barrier keeping them from these paths, either.

Unscrupulous behavior is typically hidden because the rewards of public view are mistrust and exclusion. If it is the very first unethical thing you've done, it looks as you describe it above. But one cannot live their life this way without someone noticing.

Sure, I'll give you that. Eventually someone will know if a corporation is full of maltreatment that is trying to be hidden. What if said corporation is already too big to be taken down (of course this is presuming that the practices aren't extremely terrible that they would be cut down, but the actions in this situation would still be unscrupulous as described)? What if the corporation or person is already so powerful from previous misdeeds that they're already successful? I'm sure it's entirely possible (if not common) for people to reach this sense of success through immoral means.

And those that notice will NOT reward that sort of behavior. Unless of course that's what they are looking for which is often the case. I just don't think its quite as cut and dry as you are describing it here.

In the case of a corporation again, who cares what immoral actions are taken as long as prices stay low, right? It seems that many are content with maltreatment if they can get low prices or whatever they're going for. How many people actually care if a company has its money-laced tentacles in the government, environment, and whatever else it needs to ensure this sense of success? I'm not commenting on whether this outlook is okay or not, I'm just saying that I think apathy is a lot stronger than you're making it out to be.

 

[Sunstone]

One thing that at least some social scientists believe has helped psychopaths to rise to the top of many contemporary corporations is the fact that people no longer spend their working lives in just one company. The argument goes that when that was the case (back in the 50s and 60s, for instance), psychopaths were more likely to be spotted and weeded out than they are nowadays. Nowadays, most people have careers that take them from one corporation to another. So, they spend considerably less time in any one particular corporation. And this makes it harder for psychopaths to be spotted in time to prevent them from rising to the top of a corporate heap.

 

[Innominate]

One thing that at least some social scientists believe has helped psychopaths to rise to the top of many contemporary corporations is the fact that people no longer spend their working lives in just one company. The argument goes that when that was the case (back in the 50s and 60s, for instance), psychopaths were more likely to be spotted and weeded out than they are nowadays. Nowadays, most people have careers that take them from one corporation to another. So, they spend considerably less time in any one particular corporation. And this makes it harder for psychopaths to be spotted in time to prevent them from rising to the top of a corporate heap.

That makes a lot of sense as well. One defining characteristic of psychopathy is not staying interested in one particular task for extended periods of time.

 

[Sir Doom]

Are they? Psychopaths are extremely good liars--able to conceal their true intentions extremely well. It would seem to me that someone like that would go for whatever path gets them the farthest. If that involves malice, they won't regret it. If it involves no malice, there isn't a barrier keeping them from these paths, either.

Yes. They are. Remember in Goodfellas when Jimmy made everyone take back their luxury items after the Lufthansa heist? If you make money from nefarious deeds you also have to make it seem like you made it honestly. You don't get a choice about that. You HAVE to or it goes bye-bye. Do you understand how this is a severe limitation on what actions you can take? If you boost a Ferrari to make a quick bankroll, you can't then take it to the Ferrari dealership and trade it in. You have to find someone who buys stolen cars.

Sure, I'll give you that. Eventually someone will know if a corporation is full of maltreatment that is trying to be hidden. What if said corporation is already too big to be taken down (of course this is presuming that the practices aren't extremely terrible that they would be cut down, but the actions in this situation would still be unscrupulous as described)? What if the corporation or person is already so powerful from previous misdeeds that they're already successful? I'm sure it's entirely possible (if not common) for people to reach this sense of success through immoral means.

Obviously, success can be reached through nefarious means. I never said otherwise. Not sure the point of this.

In the case of a corporation again, who cares what immoral actions are taken as long as prices stay low, right? It seems that many are content with maltreatment if they can get low prices or whatever they're going for. How many people actually care if a company has its money-laced tentacles in the government, environment, and whatever else it needs to ensure this sense of success? I'm not commenting on whether this outlook is okay or not, I'm just saying that I think apathy is a lot stronger than you're making it out to be.

Black and white isn't my bag. Read what you quoted a bit better. The entire point of my response to you was to illustrate how it wasn't so black and white as you were making it. You seem to be arguing with me as though I'm saying it's all white. I'm not.

 

[crossfire]

Do corporations have a conscience? Um, no, it's an individual thing. Corporations, however, make great covers for unscrupulous individuals.

 

[Innominate]

I would have to say there are d's, e's and f's that are closed to the person who has no conscience.

I think I found the problem here (and it was my fault). I misread what is quoted above. I read it as if you were to say that nobody can get successful through immoral means, instead of some of the paths are closed and people aren't guaranteed to make it on these paths. My bad.

As far as those without consciences not being able to use moral paths, however, I would argue that they could, just as easily as anyone else. Having no conscience doesn't necessarily mean picking the a's, b's, and c's. Although, if they were using a's, b's, and/or c's whilst attempting d's, e's, and/or f's, then yet another variable (or more) is entered into the whole situation, and the chance of success does diminish, and I will concede that point. 'Gotta love that time of concession.

If you make money from nefarious deeds you also have to make it seem like you made it honestly. You don't get a choice about that. You HAVE to or it goes bye-bye. Do you understand how this is a severe limitation on what actions you can take?

To be fair here, I was also thinking of methods of money making that are bad, yet still accepted or cannot be combated. For an example of the former, see the fur and wool trades. What do a lot of people do when they hear about the cruelty? They don't care and they continue to support the industry.

Maybe it's not as black and white as having to present nefarious deeds as honorable ones to get successful and remain that way.

Do corporations have a conscience? Um, no, it's an individual thing. Corporations, however, make great covers for unscrupulous individuals.

Great point. Any mention of mine that said corporations should be referring to those without a conscience within the corporation, not the corporation itself.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think I found the problem here (and it was my fault). I misread what is quoted above. I read it as if you were to say that nobody can get successful through immoral means, instead of some of the paths are closed and people aren't guaranteed to make it on these paths. My bad.

As far as those without consciences not being able to use moral paths, however, I would argue that they could, just as easily as anyone else. Having no conscience doesn't necessarily mean picking the a's, b's, and c's. Although, if they were using a's, b's, and/or c's whilst attempting d's, e's, and/or f's, then yet another variable (or more) is entered into the whole situation, and the chance of success does diminish, and I will concede that point. 'Gotta love that time of concession.

Yeah, I didn't even mean to suggest that being moral made it easier to succeed, only that there are paths that will be closed to an immoral person as well.

To be fair here, I was also thinking of methods of money making that are bad, yet still accepted or cannot be combated. For an example of the former, see the fur and wool trades. What do a lot of people do when they hear about the cruelty? They don't care and they continue to support the industry.

Maybe it's not as black and white as having to present nefarious deeds as honorable ones to get successful and remain that way.

That is true, and I did state it very black and white (despite my assertion that I don't do that ). Plenty of nasty things are perfectly legal, and in most cases these are called "smart business decisions" and given praise instead of scorn.

It reminds me of the news when they are discussing politics. Some politician will be asked a question that they don't want to answer and so they will give some vague, innocuous, blathering monologue that only barely relates to the topic of the question and is very obviously an attempt to avoid taking a public stance on a controversial topic. And instead of the commentators saying, "Wow, that was a mouthful of nothing." They say something like, "What a shrewd politician." or "He guarded his words very well, there." As if they never wanted an answer in the first place. Sickening really.