The Ethics of Trading - Is Trading Parasitic? | Page 2 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Predatory and Parasitic Trading 36 replies

Your Ethics 33 replies

The Ethics of Trading - Is Trading Parasitic?

  • #21
  • Aug 22, 2009 11:38am Aug 22, 2009 11:38am
Quoting ukmanthailan
I agree, otherwise it would imply that you stopped developing when you were a kid and now view the world in the same way as an 8 year old does.
8 year olds only have the morals and ethics imposed upon them by their parents and religions. One would have to be pretty naive to think that an 8 year-old could be said to have a developed moral or ethical sense, they don't even understand the concepts.

But once one reaches young adulthood and the meanings become understandable, one should find that morals and ethics are not a mystery, unlike some religions would have you believe with their interpretations that never seem to end (bible study, anyone). It's all pretty simple and they remain constant throughout life.

Just because societies change it doesn't mean what's right and wrong should. An example would be slavery. At one time it was legal, but it was never moral. If one's morals and ethics are defined by those who run the government, then I can see how they would change. But understanding the basic precept of don't fuck people over in any way is not rocket science and it doesn't change.

Another example would be the death penalty in the US. It was legal, it was illegal, then it became legal. Does that mean it is moral, then immoral, then moral again to kill? I know this question is opening a huge box that probably shouldn't be opened, but the point is simply that either you know not to do things that take advantage and/or hurt others or you don't. It's not age specific once one is old enough to understand the concept.
  • #22
  • Aug 22, 2009 12:04pm Aug 22, 2009 12:04pm
OK, maybe 8 was a bit silly but even at 15 the majority of most kids' world views and morals are still heavily influenced by their parents. Really I didn't see the problem with an adult asking for other people's opinions - it's only a discussion and hopefully he isn't actually looking for guidance from people like us.
  • #23
  • Aug 22, 2009 12:29pm Aug 22, 2009 12:29pm
I like a good debate, and I wanted to spark off some decent replies. It looks like this good be a good thread. I have my own opinions. But I do think that ethics change as society changes. Freely available abortions are one example, some people compare it to murder. Whether it is right or wrong is a question that has only arisen since it has become common practice in the last few hundred years. You can already pick the sex of your children if desired, and I believe there is a clinic in california now where you can select eye colour too thanks to advances in modern genetics. Is this right or wrong? Its off the main topic, which is where I'd like to stay, but my main point is that as society changes, new questions of ethics and what is right and wrong do evolve.

Back to trading. I have mixed views about it. When I think of events like soros' billion dollar payday, and think of how that affected the british economy, it is hard to say that that was a moral act. But at the level of joe speculator, where only 1% of us make any money on a regualar basis, I see it as a drop in the ocean really, its not hurting anyone. The former circumstance is the price that has to be paid to live in a free society.
  • #24
  • Aug 22, 2009 3:36pm Aug 22, 2009 3:36pm
Quoting Betting
But aren't many modern industries parastic?

How much food is enough? A lot of people in 3rd world countries starve, while 1st world people have too much to feed upon. Do we need coca-cola, hamburgers etc. etc? How much does advertising play a role in every purchase you make of those? Were you really hungry or thirsty? Or did you buy it just because you could? If if you buy something because you can, doesn't that make the company that made your product a parasite as well?

I live in Japan, and women here love their brand goods. As a matter of...
exactly.

But morality is a relative concept. It differs from person to person depending upon their personal understanding of the subject. As evolutionary psychology suggests we make our decisions based on the environment we are actively participating in, our immoral (or moral) activities may be justified under the prevailing conditions. what is perceived as moral by the current society my look immoral to a person with more orthodox ideas.
In the end it all depends upon the frame of reference through which you are watching the movie.
The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent.
  • #25
  • Aug 22, 2009 4:29pm Aug 22, 2009 4:29pm
Quoting pqt
Is prostitution parasitic?
http://4gifs.com/gallery/d/80663-2/Frolic_Hard.gif
  • #26
  • Aug 22, 2009 6:05pm Aug 22, 2009 6:05pm
The question presented here was about morality and trading. Seems the thread has evolved into a general discussion about morality. People, when left to their own devises, are basically immoral. If it were not for God's influence on us, then the world would quickly become (return to) a very dark place. This is why we discuss issues of morality all the time, asking question about right and wrong, etc. It's because our natural tendencies are towords immorality, so discussing it helps us stay on the moral path.
  • #27
  • Aug 22, 2009 6:06pm Aug 22, 2009 6:06pm
Quoting LasVahGoose
This is a concept that is taught to the slave / worker class of society. You might as well be a nihilist, since relative morality ultimately is a belief in nothing. Once the mind has been twisted into relative morality then black can be black or it can be white, it's all relative.

The power of relative morality is in it's ability to control a population. Once you can teach an individual that 'truth' is immoral you can lie to them, once you teach an individual that 'defending their own life' is immoral you can kill them. Basically, all human values...
Well said.
  • #28
  • Aug 22, 2009 6:14pm Aug 22, 2009 6:14pm
Quoting GEfx
People, when left to their own devises, are basically immoral.
If you have a read of Freakonomics that doesn't seem to be the case.
Quoting GEfx
If it were not for God's influence on us, then the world would quickly become (return to) a very dark place.
I have to disagree with this too. I find it a little annoying when religious people say this sort of thing. Some of us do not need a higher power to tell us that certain things are wrong. I would not steal, rape or murder regardless of the existence of God, for example. I don't do those things because I feel they are wrong, not because of any other reason.
  • #29
  • Aug 22, 2009 6:54pm Aug 22, 2009 6:54pm
"Next to inflation, majority rule is the most ingenious scheme ever contrived by government. Most people have never dared to question the basic morality or logic in the assumption that the majority should have power over the minority. A majority of the people in the South once believed in black slavery. Did that make it moral? A lynch mob is majority rule stripped of its fancy trappings and its facade of respectability. In a community where homosexuals outnumber heterosexuals, should the majority have the right to outlaw sex between married partners of the opposite sex? In a community where atheists outnumber non- atheists, should the majority have the right to outlaw the practice of religion? ... a dictatorship allows only a small number of people to interfere with the rights of others, a democracy makes it possible for great numbers of people to impose their will on others -- through the force of government. Is an act of aggression more right if carried out by the majority than by a dictator? Since approximately half the eligible voters vote this means that approximately 75% of the people are ruled by 25% of the people."

Robert J. Ringer
American Writer
  • #30
  • Aug 22, 2009 6:55pm Aug 22, 2009 6:55pm
Quoting ukmanthailan
If you have a read of Freakonomics that doesn't seem to be the case.
I have to disagree with this too. I find it a little annoying when religious people say this sort of thing. Some of us do not need a higher power to tell us that certain things are wrong. I would not steal, rape or murder regardless of the existence of God, for example. I don't do those things because I feel they are wrong, not because of any other reason.
I'm with you on this, Mate.
  • #31
  • Aug 22, 2009 7:09pm Aug 22, 2009 7:09pm
Quoting ukmanthailan
If you have a read of Freakonomics that doesn't seem to be the case.
I have to disagree with this too. I find it a little annoying when religious people say this sort of thing. Some of us do not need a higher power to tell us that certain things are wrong. I would not steal, rape or murder regardless of the existence of God, for example. I don't do those things because I feel they are wrong, not because of any other reason.
LOL - well, if you read it in Freakonomics, who am I to argue!
  • #32
  • Aug 22, 2009 7:16pm Aug 22, 2009 7:16pm
Quoting alkemi
*************************
"The symbol of all relationships among [rational] men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures..."

Ayn Rand

  • #33
  • Aug 22, 2009 7:18pm Aug 22, 2009 7:18pm
Quoting GEfx
LOL - well, if you read it in Freakonomics, who am I to argue!
Sorry - a controlled study by an economist isn't as valid as your personal, unsubstantiated opinion - is that what you are saying?

I might just as well say, if you read it in the bible then who am I to argue. I wouldn't recommend we go down the route of discussing the veracity of that particular collection of stories though.
  • #34
  • Aug 22, 2009 7:37pm Aug 22, 2009 7:37pm
Quoting LasVahGoose
You might as well be a nihilist, since relative morality ultimately is a belief in nothing.
let us follow this argument and see where it leads us.

you claim that relative morality equals to no morality at all (if i can substitute the term "belief in nothing" with the term "no morality").

that would mean, that if there is any morality at all, there is only a single one morality... the "true" morality.

and if you believe that you are a moral person, then this "true" morality is what your moral values equal to.

you see where this leads? such claims sound highly intolerant... as if someone gave you the authority to decide what is right and what is not.

what if someone has higher moral standards than you have? he could claim the same thing.. that his moral values are the right one you are the one with no morale.
I'm not insane; my mother had me tested.
  • #35
  • Aug 22, 2009 7:42pm Aug 22, 2009 7:42pm
Quoting GEfx
If it were not for God's influence on us, then the world would quickly become (return to) a very dark place.
Hmm i have to disagree. In my humble opinion "God" (for a lack of better word) has nothing to do with this.
I'm not insane; my mother had me tested.
  • #36
  • Aug 22, 2009 7:53pm Aug 22, 2009 7:53pm
Quoting ukmanthailan
I would not steal, rape or murder regardless of the existence of God, for example. I don't do those things because I feel they are wrong, not because of any other reason.
Hypothetically... your children are starving to death and there is a man with plenty of food, a lot more than he needs, but he refuses to give you some of that food to feed your kids.

Now a question for you (and i would also like to hear what LasVahGoose would answer):

Would you watch them starve to death or would you steal from the man?
Is your morale relative, and therefore depending on the circumstances, would you steal or kill...? or would you let your children die to uphold your morale code?
I'm not insane; my mother had me tested.
  • #37
  • Aug 22, 2009 7:59pm Aug 22, 2009 7:59pm
Quoting ukmanthailan
Sorry - a controlled study by an economist isn't as valid as your personal, unsubstantiated opinion - is that what you are saying?

I might just as well say, if you read it in the bible then who am I to argue. I wouldn't recommend we go down the route of discussing the veracity of that particular collection of stories though.
LOL - I see Prof. Levitt several time a year, so the next time I see him I will let him know that his contribution to mankind in the form of his book has been compared to the Bible. I know he will get a laugh out of that.

God bless you all and have a good trading week.
  • #38
  • Aug 22, 2009 8:01pm Aug 22, 2009 8:01pm
Quoting RoBiK
Hypothetically... your children are starving to death and there is a man with plenty of food, a lot more than he needs, but he refuses to give you some of that food to feed your kids.

Now a question for you (and i would also like to hear what LasVahGoose would answer):

Would you watch them starve to death or would you steal from the man?
Is your morale relative, and therefore depending on the circumstances, would you steal or kill...? or would you let your children die to uphold your morale code?
My morals are relative - I am as honest as I can afford to be. I can't really comment on the murder aspect as I have never been in that position.
  • #39
  • Aug 22, 2009 8:01pm Aug 22, 2009 8:01pm
Quoting RoBiK
Hypothetically... your children are starving to death and there is a man with plenty of food, a lot more than he needs, but he refuses to give you some of that food to feed your kids.

Now a question for you (and i would also like to hear what LasVahGoose would answer):

Would you watch them starve to death or would you steal from the man?
Is your morale relative, and therefore depending on the circumstances, would you steal or kill...? or would you let your children die to uphold your morale code?
I am sorry, but your question is foolish. You need to study the bible before asking such a question. I do not mean to be rude, but come on.
  • #40
  • Aug 22, 2009 8:01pm Aug 22, 2009 8:01pm
Quoting GEfx
LOL - I see Prof. Levitt several time a year, so the next time I see him I will let him know that his contribution to mankind in the form of his book has been compared to the Bible. I know he will get a laugh out of that.

God bless you all and have a good trading week.
Do tell him I thoroughly enjoyed his book and it was far less full of holes than the Bible.

But I'm not comparing contributions to mankind as you well know. I am saying that my source for this particular discussion is well documented and unless he made the whole study up, true. There are no such guarantees with the other book.

I do think we should not discuss it further though. From my personal experience, believers expect their faith to be treated with respect, but have no respect for other people's right not to believe - if they did then they wouldn't turn up on my doorstep at the weekends.
0 traders viewing now