• Followers 0
  • Following 1
  • Updates 18
Trickle Down Ethics
Friday March 17 2017, 3:27 AM

     In a nation that practices capitalism, one measures themselves and their actions by their bottom line, and profit. If it makes dollars then it makes sense, but what does this mean. It has a nice ring to it, “ if it don't make dollars, then it don't make sense.” But the niceness of its sound is matched by its deadliness in practice. This statement ultimately boils down to money and its accumulation is the measurement of all things. One is quickly pardoned of their morals for the right price in this land.

     We excuse those of who we should hold to the highest of standards. Money can be used to buy the ethics and morals of the most influential, and in this power the rules do not apply. But what happens when the rules don't apply to those who to which the rules should most apply due to their power and and influence on others lives and environments? What about those to whom we put our out most confidence, and trust in, to those we look to be our moral compass? Should we not hold them to highest of levels of conduct, as well as to the harshest punishments for infraction upon those rules. To set a standard, as well as to deter others from abusing the trust and will of the people.

     Common abuses go unquestioned right in front of us, do to its common practice, and because of its financial and social implications. Those who steals millions of money from those to who they were entrusted, do not receive a harsher punishment from those who take by force. It is not more of a crime to steal from a friend than from a stranger? To those who are entrusted to save lives, if they are found destroying lives, should we not punish those more harsh than the common criminal.

     To bring this closer to home, think about those who we give titles to, and we recognize as being of a higher rank than the commoner. Those to which titles and ranks are given, be hit with a harsher punishment when they abuse their position? Is the leader, or those with the title ultimately held responsible, and accountable? If something happens in a judges courtroom, who is held responsible? The Judge. The Judge is responsible for order, and he was awarded that title to be the bearer of justice. So if he infringes upon this office, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard than all those he judged in that same courtroom? In turn shouldn't justice reflect this?

     What motivates judges to infringe on the power of justice, or the Dr. being the bestow-er of poison? As in countless time and worlds before ours, it is money. Money motivated some judges to send kids to jail unjustifiably, it was money that motivated some Dr.'s to abuse their power and prescribe opioids to people who they knew were addicted. Do we think twice about it? No. Because it we expect it. Just think, why does one lawyer who cost more, can promise a deal with the judge if money was not exchanged? Why do people with money get off, because they have money? Who lets them off? The Judge. As the Dr. is concerned, who did he prescribe pills to? To those who could afford to see him. Let it be clear, Dr's practiced the art of selling prescriptions to drugs that caused the current opioid epidemic our world faces now. Money motivated the Dr. to make his patients sick.

     What does that say about our world?  Where the judges give you a pass for the right price, and the Dr.'s make people sick, or base their judgement on care by the bottom line? In a land like that, where can one look for a model or morality in the worlds, when the one's we trust with our life, and the enforcer of the law have been corrupted?

You May Also Like