(October 6, 2021 at 9:22 am)Spongebob Wrote:(October 6, 2021 at 8:58 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Swindling old ladies out of their pension cheques also serves it's intended purpose by generating money. I'd hesitate to describe it as ethical.
Contrary to the opinions of Signore Machiavelli and others, the end does not justify the means.
Boru
This is front and center to what I'm talking about. I'm curious what makes you hesitate. What would make you even remotely consider it ethical? I'm genuinely interested in how we process this idea of what's ok to do to make money and why.
(October 6, 2021 at 9:19 am)brewer Wrote: There are much worse cons for money. Examples: Theranos, Purdue, Mylan, Juul.
Should we throw organized religion and chiropractic in just for kicks?
Absolutely consider those and all others. I just seeded the conversation with the covid treatments but that's not even scratching the surface.
I wouldn't consider Juul to be a con, though. It delivers exactly what it purports to deliver. Is there some misrepresentation in the product?
Chiropractic for sure, at least some aspects of it. There are some legitimate aspects to the practice and a large number of its practitioners have stopped making all of the woo woo claims, but some are still at it. So overall I still consider it a pseudo-science. At best its a very expensive massage.
Sorry, the use of ‘hesitate’ is simply an expression. Please take it to mean, ‘I wouldn’t call this behaviour “ethical” even if my only alternative was to be stripped naked, covered in brown gravy, and dropped into a pit of starving, rabid ferrets.’
I apologize for any confusion.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
