"Why are people who want for nothing, driven to hoard more money at the expense of a planet in ecological and social crisis?"
Narcissism, in addition to the aforementioned dopamine feedback and capitalism/consumerism. The current system rewards behaviour that brings them more money, they are very good at playing that game, and they truly don't give a shit for anything that can't somehow bring them gratification and another dopamine hit.
Every new datum is filtered through the lens of "how does this affect me?", and if the answer is, "not much, I can use my money to shield myself", or "I'll be dead by then", the datum is discounted or discarded.
Laura, thanks for sharing. The only thing that I would add is how they interfere with the political system to ensure that their wealth is protected at the expense of everyone else. But this begs the question...why do so many people revere and defend these psychopaths AND most of all, how is it that we allow them to run our countries? I touch upon this question is this article.
While the discussion here has been interesting, it hasn't really addressed the original subject which is "moral injury". Moral injury is a particular term used either in the military or among essential healthcare workers. It doesn't refer to the stress of day-to-day living or working. That is something that care workers and the military are used to and are trained for.
Rather moral distress and it's most severe cases"moral injury" explicitly means when you are asked to do something that you believe is morally wrong -'-that causes you distress that will likely trouble you years into the future. For example if you're asked to work without proper PPE equipment or asked to participate in banning families from being around a near-death family member, those are examples where you are asked by your employer to do something that you feel is morally unconscionable.
I think if you're using this specific definition of moral distress, the arguments thusfar need to be rethought.
For reference, see the Ethicscan covid blog site on this topic.
Every CEO and CFO has a fiduciary duty to maximize returns for their company and shareholders. That's what is the company's purpose and what the CEO is used for. Any other priority, be it the well-being of its employees or long-term goals like the survival of the planet, must be a lower priority. This is not about insanity or personal greed. It is the systemically institutionalized greed that is said to be the primacy of capital accumulation and capitalism.
It is of little use to determine whether this or another CEO is personally driven more by a drive for power, sense of superiority or madness. Within the systemic setup, there will always be someone who will take their place if they are not delivering the expected return.
Yes Brad, and I'm more concerned with rewarding working people in the first place and caring about their well-being. After that happens, we can focus on upper management.
The first time you earn, say $10,000 dollars with your own business, you get a rush. To achieve that same feeling again next time, it needs to be $20,000. Then $40,000, etc., etc.
Obviously, the math isn't exact but, broadly speaking, it is the behaviour of addiction.
The question is if we have enough psychotherapists to treat all the people in the financial industries with a gambling addiction, being paid incredible salaries for doing societal destuctive work.
The first step is admitting you have a problem and they certanly won't see a problem in themselves. Thanks to the onflow effects of the Protestant work ethic (which sees it's most dangerous iteration in the Prosperity Gospel), many people will see dangerously addicted kleptocrats as aspirational champions.
What's that famous (and often misattributed) quote about poor Americans seeing themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires?
Alan, you're right. They won't see it in themselves because society is telling them (and us) how special they are. It's all part of the systematic brainwashing that occurs everyday. I touch on this idea in this article.
Edward Abbey answered this in "The Monkey Wrench Gang" (1975). One of his characters has a dream where a machine that represents the capitalist ruling class utters "... the basic message. Power ... profit ... prestige ... pleasure ... profit ... prestige ... pleasure ... power ..." (p. 256)
I've seen nothing better in decades of studying the realities of social and political power.
I believe it is simply a result of the existing economic systems that are built to drive money upwards. These systems (loosely called the economy) are constructed to extract without accounting for natural capital costs. Anything that threatens that (regulation, competition from renewables etc) is attacked.
Lorne, I don't think you answered the question. Yes, that might be how the system works (based on a destructive reward system) but for people who don't need to engage with the system any longer, why do they continue, and usually in such a harmful way?
Well, besides the fact that it's that system that feeds their lifestyle, perhaps it is tied to self worth. Once you identify as a billionaire and entangle your value as a person with that label, it's probably hard to accept sliding down the ladder.
"Why are people who want for nothing, driven to hoard more money at the expense of a planet in ecological and social crisis?"
Narcissism, in addition to the aforementioned dopamine feedback and capitalism/consumerism. The current system rewards behaviour that brings them more money, they are very good at playing that game, and they truly don't give a shit for anything that can't somehow bring them gratification and another dopamine hit.
Every new datum is filtered through the lens of "how does this affect me?", and if the answer is, "not much, I can use my money to shield myself", or "I'll be dead by then", the datum is discounted or discarded.
Inability to feel empathy.
Laura, thanks for sharing. The only thing that I would add is how they interfere with the political system to ensure that their wealth is protected at the expense of everyone else. But this begs the question...why do so many people revere and defend these psychopaths AND most of all, how is it that we allow them to run our countries? I touch upon this question is this article.
https://bradzarnett.substack.com/p/who-should-you-be-more-afraid-of
While the discussion here has been interesting, it hasn't really addressed the original subject which is "moral injury". Moral injury is a particular term used either in the military or among essential healthcare workers. It doesn't refer to the stress of day-to-day living or working. That is something that care workers and the military are used to and are trained for.
Rather moral distress and it's most severe cases"moral injury" explicitly means when you are asked to do something that you believe is morally wrong -'-that causes you distress that will likely trouble you years into the future. For example if you're asked to work without proper PPE equipment or asked to participate in banning families from being around a near-death family member, those are examples where you are asked by your employer to do something that you feel is morally unconscionable.
I think if you're using this specific definition of moral distress, the arguments thusfar need to be rethought.
For reference, see the Ethicscan covid blog site on this topic.
David, the term was "moral hazard". Are we talking about the same thing?
Every CEO and CFO has a fiduciary duty to maximize returns for their company and shareholders. That's what is the company's purpose and what the CEO is used for. Any other priority, be it the well-being of its employees or long-term goals like the survival of the planet, must be a lower priority. This is not about insanity or personal greed. It is the systemically institutionalized greed that is said to be the primacy of capital accumulation and capitalism.
It is of little use to determine whether this or another CEO is personally driven more by a drive for power, sense of superiority or madness. Within the systemic setup, there will always be someone who will take their place if they are not delivering the expected return.
Which is why we need to create different rewards and incentives in the current system...how about wellbeing?
https://bradzarnett.substack.com/p/capitalism-is-a-great-systemexcept
Yes Brad, and I'm more concerned with rewarding working people in the first place and caring about their well-being. After that happens, we can focus on upper management.
Dopamine addiction.
The first time you earn, say $10,000 dollars with your own business, you get a rush. To achieve that same feeling again next time, it needs to be $20,000. Then $40,000, etc., etc.
Obviously, the math isn't exact but, broadly speaking, it is the behaviour of addiction.
So that begs the question...do we really need dopamine addicted people controlling our governments?
The question is if we have enough psychotherapists to treat all the people in the financial industries with a gambling addiction, being paid incredible salaries for doing societal destuctive work.
The first step is admitting you have a problem and they certanly won't see a problem in themselves. Thanks to the onflow effects of the Protestant work ethic (which sees it's most dangerous iteration in the Prosperity Gospel), many people will see dangerously addicted kleptocrats as aspirational champions.
What's that famous (and often misattributed) quote about poor Americans seeing themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires?
Alan, you're right. They won't see it in themselves because society is telling them (and us) how special they are. It's all part of the systematic brainwashing that occurs everyday. I touch on this idea in this article.
https://bradzarnett.substack.com/p/who-should-you-be-more-afraid-of
We can tax every stock transaction $1 and have plenty of money and people to treat all of the psychopaths.
We don't need them and we don't need sociopaths. We have both.
Edward Abbey answered this in "The Monkey Wrench Gang" (1975). One of his characters has a dream where a machine that represents the capitalist ruling class utters "... the basic message. Power ... profit ... prestige ... pleasure ... profit ... prestige ... pleasure ... power ..." (p. 256)
I've seen nothing better in decades of studying the realities of social and political power.
I believe it is simply a result of the existing economic systems that are built to drive money upwards. These systems (loosely called the economy) are constructed to extract without accounting for natural capital costs. Anything that threatens that (regulation, competition from renewables etc) is attacked.
Lorne, I don't think you answered the question. Yes, that might be how the system works (based on a destructive reward system) but for people who don't need to engage with the system any longer, why do they continue, and usually in such a harmful way?
Why do billionaires get involved in charity?
1. They want to see themselves as good people.
2. They build networks and use leverage to get more profits.
Here's a very interesting audio about how billionaires soften criticism with all of their giving. "How Philanthropy Lets Rich People Off the Hook"
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-philanthropy-lets-rich-people-hook-on-the-media
Well, besides the fact that it's that system that feeds their lifestyle, perhaps it is tied to self worth. Once you identify as a billionaire and entangle your value as a person with that label, it's probably hard to accept sliding down the ladder.
The bragging ladder at cocktail parties?