Is Conscience a Hindrance to Worldly Success?

[Revoltingest]

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

This is true of all organizations, eg, non-profits, sole proprietorships, government, religious (especially rich in irony).

 

[Straw Dog]

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

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

Why is worldly success only defined in monetary terms?

Studies in the field of positive psychology indicate that wealth doesn't contribute to overall life satisfaction much beyond what is necessary for a comfortable living level. There are correlations with gratitude, self-esteem, time experiencing positive affect, level of leisure activity, number of friends, frequency of sexual intercourse, conscientiousness, physical health, and other factors that are much higher in terms of contributing to life satisfaction than income and wealth.

 

[crossfire]

This is true of all organizations, eg, non-profits, sole proprietorships, government, religious (especially rich in irony).

Yep. :yes:

 

[Mangosteen]

No, I don't think so. The King of Thailand is very compassionate, and one of the riches kings in the world. He is said to have gone to every village in the country and walked every square foot.

 

[Innominate]

Why is worldly success only defined in monetary terms?

Studies in the field of positive psychology indicate that wealth doesn't contribute to overall life satisfaction much beyond what is necessary for a comfortable living level. There are correlations with gratitude, self-esteem, time experiencing positive affect, level of leisure activity, number of friends, frequency of sexual intercourse, conscientiousness, physical health, and other factors that are much higher in terms of contributing to life satisfaction than income and wealth.

Notice that Random said "for the sake of discussion." Like I said earlier, if it's for the sake of discussion, who cares what you call something? A lot of discussions have prerequisites that include defining something, like many moral arguments. If you want to discuss whether or not something is moral, morality should be defined.

If Random wants to call the acquisition of money "success" for the purpose of discussion, then we're discussing the acquisition of money, not any other possible definitions for success. Defining success is a different discussion entirely.

 

[Straw Dog]

If Random wants to call the acquisition of money "success" for the purpose of discussion, then we're discussing the acquisition of money, not any other possible definitions for success. Defining success is a different discussion entirely.

Fair enough. I just don't see the point in discussing an erroneous and narrow-minded definition of "success", but I'll leave you to it.

 

[crossfire]

Fair enough. I just don't see the point in discussing an erroneous and narrow-minded definition of "success", but I'll leave you to it.

Especially if he's projecting that notion onto libertarians, without even consulting actual libertarians.

 

[Alceste]

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.

I don't know about that. Most of the philosophers I've come across who are taken seriously in the world of philosophy make some effort to defend their arguments against reasonable objections. Rand did not do this. She ignored the most obvious and reasonable objections and instead constructed extremely far-fetched straw man arguments to debate against. She also had open contempt for the character, merit and social value of anyone who might disagree with her view for ANY reason, the working class in general, and basically anybody but the super-rich. That kind of bigotry makes for bad philosophy. It's fundamentally irrational, and philosophy should be based on reason. She's not a philosopher for the same reason Ken Hamm is not a philosopher, or Ken Wilber.

I don't blame the field of philosophy for not taking her seriously. Her ideas also had no real impact outside the US.

 

[Alceste]

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.

My conscience has definitely been a hindrance in my ability to accumulate wealth. I come from a province where basically anybody can make a very comfortable living by digging up and exporting the world's dirtiest oil. If i had no conscience, that's what I would be doing. There are also jobs for people who want to clear-cut the forests where I live, or clear-cut the ocean (that is the general effect of trawlers, which destroy the entire marine ecosystem).

I have felt conflicted about all my jobs. Even the tuque factory, because it was basically a sweat shop, and because the owner (a Jewish guy) donated thousands of free tuques to the IDF. I felt conflicted about working for a cell phone company when they started charging for incoming texts. I felt conflicted working for a golf cart rental place because golf courses are coated with toxic chemicals that get into the water.

I have had a couple of jobs in the public and non-profit sector that I felt completely OK with, but those jobs don't tend to pay very well, and you can't advance in the public sector without a degree. (I didn't get a degree because I have ethical issues with student debt).

So yeah. It hinders.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

She's not a philosopher for the same reason Ken Hamm is not a philosopher, or Ken Wilber.

Explain why you think this is true with Ken Wilber. So many people have respect for him. I read one of his books. Did not like it at all.

 

[Orias]

Conscience is a hindrance to itself, and only itself. Which ultimately determines the level and amount of success it produces according to the individual and the world.

Based on the definition the answer should technically be yes and no. Money is a necessity, being a necessity it requires little conscience or as defined a "moral compass" (although morality and material world often conflict, it cannot be said that one truly overlaps the other, because they need each other).