And on top of that, he’s so stupid that the 1 on 3 he does the right thing is revealing that. If not fired for being un ethical, fire because he’s an idiot.

I disagree. People like this will put any of their own gain above their morality. And if we look at this rationally, sure at first that means you will start living comfortable. But if everyone does what you do, the world around you would suck. And I’m sorry, I don’t want the world around me to suck, even if I have to sacrifice some potential gain for that.

And this is why, even as a completely egotistical asshole, your goals should be noble, even if only for your own sake.

And this is also why no one should promote lying if there’s not a damn good reason. This is not a damn good reason.

The professor can’t be right, he said no judgement, be honest and judged an honest answer not for the frame of mind that lead anon to believe it, but rather for being honest (which he himself asked it to be), so I can’t see any valuable lesson here.

That’s right everyone, the ethical thing to do is lie and the professor was right to publicly shame anon for not lying. What a great point to make.

The scale is subjectively relative though. Maybe anon feels that because they eat meat, don’t recycle, don’t tip well, etc, that he is acting unethically. By that scale, he’s probably significantly much more ethical than someone without that awareness.

If a job asks you to rate your own morality, 9/10 times it’s a shit job as jobs worth having don’t ask this kind of bullshit.

So any firing would be sparing someone from a shitty employment.

The irony being that the person who rates themselves as unethical is actually likely to be one of the most ethical people answering; someone truly unethical would’ve lied about it in the first place, or failed to even notice or acknowledge their unethicalness.

American Psycho was a documentary.

Listening to professors who are also chief officers of companies tickle the balls of capitalistic idealogies to young adults fresh out of high school.

Agree, with arguments: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/27/bulldoze-the-business-school

There’s a Harvard Professor named Richard Wolfe who always likes to tickle his audience by asking the question “Why do universities have an Economics department that’s distinct and separate from the Business School?” And then he gets into the distinctions between the western ideology around economic planning relative to the practical education around running an efficient business.

The People’s Republic of Walmart also goes into this bifrication of western understanding of efficient economic practices. Theorists preach the value of competition and choice and flexibility and auction pricing, while successful CEOs tend to prefer strict hierarchies over regional monopolies with steady schedules and well-defined quotas and flat fees.

Buddy, do I have news for you.

In a business school they’re the same thing: stuff we have to put on the syllabus so it looks like we care about them.

It’s not like they actually teach those subjects, they just need to appear on the timetable. So putting them together works fine.

business school. you treat them both the same way.