|Moderated by: Joe Kelley, bear|
|Productive or Destructive
The concept of gaining at the expense of someone else is the adaptive, creative, productive competitive, function of human life within the limited concept of morality. Absent the limitations of morality the same productive power commanded by individual human beings becomes a destructive power instead of a productive power.
Instead of a power employed by individuals whereby all human life increases in quality and lowers in cost the same power becomes an employment of power by individuals aiming to destroy other individuals, to gain at the expense of other individuals without moral limit.
Within the limits of morality the same power that would be employed to destroy someone is instead a power that effectively improves someone, in each case, as measured accurately by accurate means measuring power transfers of significant capacity to produce more power out of less power.
In other words, there is within the genetic predisposition for one human being to gain advantage over another human being the obvious and accurately measurable goal of improvement for the entire species of human beings so long as that process of gaining advantage over another human being is limited within the cooperative, agreeable, compounding of another genetic predisposition knowable as morality.
From the opposite viewpoint there can be an understanding of how immoral actions are measurable as a victim is rendered powerless in defense against a criminal, as the power required to defend against injury is transferred to the criminal during the crime being perpetrated by the criminal upon the victim.
If a criminal is driven by a perceived need to gain at the expense of a another human being, a target targeted by the criminal, what methods constitute crime as the criminal gains at the expense of the victim?
1. Fraud (Falsehood)
2. Extortion (Treats)
3. Violence (Physical injury)
Arguments over the expanded list of immoral acts, arguments that may involve claims of crimes perpetrated by criminals whereby there are no victims, or whereby the criminal is claimed to be the victim, are additions to the most obvious list of methods chosen by criminals whereby criminals perpetrate crimes upon targeted, and presumed to be innocent, victims.
Taking the same drive that drives criminals to act immorally, to perpetrate fraud upon innocent victims, to perpetrate extortion upon innocent victims, and to perpetrate violence upon innocent victims, for fun, for profit, for any gain transferred from the victim to the criminal, taking that same drive, that drive to gain, and that drive to gain at the expense of another human being, that drive, taking that drive and adding to that drive another drive, whereby the additional drive is the morally driven force behind moral human action, and what can be expected as a list is made to list all the actions that are invented by all the people who are driven by those companion drives of profit, at the expense of other human beings, and morality, as both drives are combined into one force that drives individual people into action?
Please consider the possibility that these questions are as new to me as they may be new, or news, to anyone else reading these questions.
These questions are vital questions worth the effort to find the accurate answers, as a function of exactly what these questions are intending to answer, which is the combination of the power driving individual profit, to gain, and even to gain at the expense of another person, and at the same time to remain within the boundaries of moral conduct.
If the question is vital, who gains the credit for asking the vital question?
If the question is vital then the answer is vital, and who gains the credit for finding the most accurate answer?
If one person finds a less accurate answer, having gained the credit for finding the less accurate answer, and is then discredited by another person who finds, offers, and is credited with a more accurate answer, does that process moving that way illustrate the question asked?
What happens when the force that drives one person to gain at the expense of another person is no longer a criminal force, and instead of that force that drives one person to gain at the expense of another person being a criminal force, what happens when that force is combined with the force called morality?
If one person is gaining fame and fortune by offering an idea, or a product, that supplies a demand made by many, or almost all of the, people, does the next person inventing an improved design, rendering the old design obsolete, commit a crime?
Knowing beforehand that an improved idea, an improved design, will remove the power of fame and fortune flowing to the suppliers of the obsolete idea, the obsolete design, is a fact of knowing that the new supplier will be gaining at the expense of the old supplier.
That illustrates the intended question, as the obsolete idea is an idea that anything is good enough for government work so long as the governors gain at the expense of the governed.
Any lie is good enough for government work, as proven by the fact that everyone knows that those people running for office are lying.
Any extortion is good enough for government work, as proven by the fact that death and taxes are the only sure things, and if you don't pay your fair share, you are as good as dead. Involuntary taxes, mere words, are facts of life, because the alternative is death by the hands of the same government agents collecting the tax?
Any violence is good enough for government work so long as the taxes are collected in funding the government which must exists, as it exists, because the governors say so, which are lies, and because the governors threaten, which is extortion, and because the governors make good on their threats when push comes to shove.
So my question asks if you are fooled in this way too. Are you fooled into a false belief that it is wrong to gain at the expense of your fellow man, or woman, even if doing so is well within the boundaries of moral conduct?
In other words, the question asks, is profit, want of gaining at the expense of another, always immoral?
The obvious, demonstrably true, just, real, productive, honest, inventive, adaptive, and life sustaining answer is not maybe.
The true answer is defined as moral people define it, agreeably, competitively, generously, and with trust, and a presumption of innocence before reaching for a lie, or a threat, or violence as a means of punishing those found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having perpetrated an actual crime upon an actual victim.