When Did Jobs Overtake Conscience?

[Da Skinna]

We won't end the drug war because there are too many jobs tied to it. Prisons, police, courts and all that.

Eichmann did his job purportedly because he needed to build a career.

Why do we value jobs over right and wrong? Why do we value a person's occupation and living over our own consciences, over knowledge of what works and what doesn't?

Does climate change fit anywhere in here?

Wtf, people?

[beranas]

I have one word:

MONEY

No conscience can stand up to a briefcase full of brand new, non-consecutive 100 dollar bills. Unless your crazy.

[removeduser_487563287433]

We won't end the drug war because there are too many jobs tied to it. Prisons, police, courts and all that.

Eichmann did his job purportedly because he needed to build a career.

Why do we value jobs over right and wrong? Why do we value a person's occupation and living over our own consciences, over knowledge of what works and what doesn't?

Does climate change fit anywhere in here?

Wtf, people?

Haha, I like the assumption you can end the drug "war".

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

As long as people are addicted to drugs, there will be a drug war. Why? People like pleasure, especially pleasure from narcotic substances.

[Da Skinna]

As long as people are addicted to drugs, there will be a drug war. Why? People like pleasure, especially pleasure from narcotic substances.

What kind of sense is that? The war on drugs is establishment made, no different than alcohol's prohibition.

They can't monopolize it so they outlaw it.



And of course it's money, it's just pathetic that nobody thinks of these things. I asked a rhetorical question, aimed at goading the correct answer.

[AqD]

What kind of sense is that? The war on drugs is establishment made, no different than alcohol's prohibition.

Agreed. The same goes to the war against unforced prostitution here.
________
red head Cam

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Money is nothing without a compelling impulse to spend it in the first place. And there is one, the pleasure and addictive experiences caused by drugs which make them popular among all classes, although the higher ones provide the biggest share of income due to their hedonistic culture allowed by their money and the more expensive drugs they can take.

What else can I say about war on drugs? It is a morally acceptable, even if hypocritical attitude, to buy a large share of drugs privately while publicly attacking them. Drugs are incredibly accessible to anyone, and I really doubt that many people here already didn't take them once in ther lives, at least. With time, people regard it merely as a moral structure of little sense but still deserving some form of superficial obedience and have little against drugs, not even if they're potentially harmful and addictive substances that can kill and do so in large numbers today.

I, for one, am in favour of keeping most drugs illegal. There'll always be the fool who'll waste their lives with that, but as long as it remains a morally bad thing to take and there's widespread education about their effects, we might be saving many who will not destroy themselves with drug addiction.

[Da Skinna]

Money is nothing without a compelling impulse to spend it in the first place. And there is one, the pleasure and addictive experiences caused by drugs which make them popular among all classes, although the higher ones provide the biggest share of income due to their hedonistic culture allowed by their money and the more expensive drugs they can take.

What else can I say about war on drugs? It is a morally acceptable, even if hypocritical attitude, to buy a large share of drugs privately while publicly attacking them. Drugs are incredibly accessible to anyone, and I really doubt that many people here already didn't take them once in ther lives, at least. With time, people regard it merely as a moral structure of little sense but still deserving some form of superficial obedience and have little against drugs, not even if they're potentially harmful and addictive substances that can kill and do so in large numbers today.

I, for one, am in favour of keeping most drugs illegal. There'll always be the fool who'll waste their lives with that, but as long as it remains a morally bad thing to take and there's widespread education about their effects, we might be saving many who will not destroy themselves with drug addiction.

How about decriminilization?

Get harmless potheads out of prison and replace them with real crooks.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

How about decriminilization?

Get harmless potheads out of prison and replace them with real crooks.

That could be an alternative, except if you're talking about who runs the business, of course. But generally most drug addicts I heard of are not punished with prison, they rather continue taking drugs or go to rehab centers which receive many of them, so I don't see how this could significantly free more space in prisons. Unless, of course, the guy comitted a crime while "high", then these ones could be sent to special rehab centers.

[AqD]

I, for one, am in favour of keeping most drugs illegal. There'll always be the fool who'll waste their lives with that, but as long as it remains a morally bad thing to take and there's widespread education about their effects, we might be saving many who will not destroy themselves with drug addiction.

True, but I believe law is a serious issue and it means things/actions against law are very wrong and must be eliminated or punished harshly, and thus it should not be used to meddle with people's mere "preferences" - which should be left to education, and education only.

It's more wrong to save someone by imprisoning him, than to allow him to kill himself. And the government should never be given the right to interfere what a person might do to himself.
________
Children Nexium

[Big War Bird]

Money is nothing without a compelling impulse to spend it in the first place. And there is one, the pleasure and addictive experiences caused by drugs which make them popular among all classes, although the higher ones provide the biggest share of income due to their hedonistic culture allowed by their money and the more expensive drugs they can take.

What else can I say about war on drugs? It is a morally acceptable, even if hypocritical attitude, to buy a large share of drugs privately while publicly attacking them. Drugs are incredibly accessible to anyone, and I really doubt that many people here already didn't take them once in ther lives, at least. With time, people regard it merely as a moral structure of little sense but still deserving some form of superficial obedience and have little against drugs, not even if they're potentially harmful and addictive substances that can kill and do so in large numbers today.

I, for one, am in favour of keeping most drugs illegal. There'll always be the fool who'll waste their lives with that, but as long as it remains a morally bad thing to take and there's widespread education about their effects, we might be saving many who will not destroy themselves with drug addiction.

Count me as one of those that has never taken a proscribed substance, I wouldn't know how to get some either.

@Da Skinna

Can you site the evidence you have that jobs are the reason there is the supposed war on drugs?

[bspiken]

Yes, the end of the drug war is legalising drugs

[Archaalen]

Actually, possession of marijuana or other drugs is for many of the people currently in prison, their only crime.

[Oldgamer]

Eichmann did his job purportedly because he needed to build a career.

In his memoirs Inside the Third Reich, Albert Speer ... the ultimate middle-class technocrat ... talks movingly about his graduation from college, his marriage, his attempt to build a architectural firm, and the opportunities the National Socialist Party offered him. Even though he had no political beliefs, he accepted an invitation from one of his friends, attended a Hitler rally, and was hooked.

A few days later, he joined the Party. A few years later, he was the Minister of Armaments and Production for Germany, and was using slave labor to keep the tanks, aircraft, ammunition, and supplies moving to the troops.

Himmler, the chicken-farmer who dreamed of leading troops into battle ...

Goring, the WWI flying ace who wanted who became someone important ...

Streicher, the race-baiter with a profitable periodical, who became the formulator for the Nazis' racial theories ...

The list goes on forever. Somewhere, each one of these people lost their moral compass. Perhaps, the only one who didn't have a moral compass was Hitler himself ... it's my belief, after studying the man for a lifetime, that he was likely a psychopath, utterly lacking a moral center, although he was also sickeningly sentimental.

Many of the men who served the Third Reich did so simply because it offered them a job, or a promotion, or a career in public service. As they continued in their professions, they lost sight of what they were doing.

[Da Skinna]

Did you like the movie Downfall?

I personally loved it because it showed Hitler as a human being, something I believe is far more important than showing him as some mythological creature on a pedestal that is as thus far unattainable by any human being in the future.

Kinda like Jesus.

[Oldgamer]

Did you like the movie Downfall?

I personally loved it because it showed Hitler as a human being, something I believe is far more important than showing him as some mythological creature on a pedestal that is as thus far unattainable by any human being in the future.

Kinda like Jesus.

I've never seen Downfall. I really should. Human is exactly what the man was.

One interesting fact about Hitler is how ... as Fuhrer ... he protected the Jewish doctor who treated his mother, prior to her death.

Hitler fought four years on the front lines, in WWI, only to see Germany lose the war. It can be argued that the German Army came home undefeated (although it had been, and decisively so). To his logical sense, the idea came that Germany had been betrayed, and that the "betrayers" had to be punished.

Many other Germans, in all walks of life, believed this to be so. That, when combined with the Reparations, and the lack of opportunity during the Depression, made Hitler's rise to power almost a certainty.

And so, a middle-class architect is attracted to Hitler's Party, and Albert Speer is born into adulthood. He only realized what he was doing when Hitler ordered him to destroy every field, farm, bridge, railway, factory, business, and so on, when the man realized that the German people had failed him ... they had betrayed him.

Speer disobeyed those orders, because he realized quite suddenly that the German people needed a basis for life and an economy, when the war was over.

Jobs overtake conscience when men and women ignore that still, small voice within that tells them, "This is wrong." The job becomes more important than conscience when people become their job, i.e., they become police officers, politicians, businessmen, and so on, and forget that they are human, first and foremost.

[The Super Pope]

We won't end the drug war because there are too many jobs tied to it. Prisons, police, courts and all that.

Because it's not the establishment who are producing and selling the drugs? If you legalize, let's say cannabis, then the amounts taken will soar massively. Addiction will increase with destructive effects on people's health just like smoking and drinking.

[morteduzionism]

We won't end the drug war because there are too many jobs tied to it. Prisons, police, courts and all that.

It's not just drugs it's crime. It somewhat implies that there isn't really a desire to actually "eliminate" or "reduce" crime because of the economical impact.

I recall a few years ago(within the last 5 years) that prisons and their construction were considered a top growth industry.

I can't imagine that people with PhD's in economics and other fields haven't made the same correlation that you have: legal jobs tied to criminal behavior

I don't think anyone would attempt to realistically argue that prosecution is better than prevention. So why so little emphasis on prevention?

Why does this country(US) emphasize prosecution/incarceration over prevention? What group/ideology seems to prefer prosecution over prevention? Does this group/ideology also seem to be characterized as pro-business and against social programs? If there really was a group/ideology that seemed to be pro-business, prefers incarceration to prevention and opposes their tax dollars being spent to help others I think it would be safe to say that group is a mean spirited money-hungry bunch of people that shouldn't be allowed to influence decisions that affect the country as a whole.

But there isn't an ideology like that in America, right?

Why do we value jobs over right and wrong? Why do we value a person's occupation and living over our own consciences, over knowledge of what works and what doesn't?

Speaking as an American I think it's because America doesn't have a culture. When the first Euros arrived here they weren't some homogenous group that shared a common set of morals or values. Also, the initial purpose of the colonies were to simply make money for the home kingdoms/queendoms.

America has never had a "common set of values", the constitution was created by male Protestants to the exclusion of Catholics, females and non whites. It would be more amazing if materialism wasn't the American god.

Does climate change fit anywhere in here?

IMO it fits because if there is a group of people in the world that value their own immediate gratification to the detriment of others, or without consideration to others, then they could, through their sefish actions, make the planet uninhabitable(i.e. deforestation, pollution, biologics) for future generations. But what do they care? They're only concerns are things like saving a few logging jobs at the expense of other living species, etc<---oops there really are people like this, they're called conservative Republicans and here I was trying to make up the most evil imaginary boogey-man I could think of...lol...go figure!?

EDIT:
A good book to read would be: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn; there're a lot of topics covered in the book but I think anyone who is interested in questions like this should read it.

[Chaigidel]

I know a chap who works in cancer research and he does nothing but inject mice with chemicals while they are still alive, and then snips the top of the skull and scoops out the brain and puts it in a blender-- he does thousands of mice a day and he has to do it in such a way that the mouse is not afraid otherwise he will damage the compound he is trying to retrieve.

he says he can barely sleep at night but he gets payed well over 200k a year.

[Cluny the Scourge]

I know a chap who works in cancer research and he does nothing but inject mice with chemicals while they are still alive, and then snips the top of the skull and scoops out the brain and puts it in a blender-- he does thousands of mice a day and he has to do it in such a way that the mouse is not afraid otherwise he will damage the compound he is trying to retrieve.

he says he can barely sleep at night but he gets payed well over 200k a year.

He's helping to cure cancer.

And is being paid 200k a year to do it.

Conscience AND wallet satisfied. An unbeatable combination.

Who gives a rats ass about some lab mice? They were bred to die. They have no other purpose.