DO THE RIGHT THING
Bob van Dijk and his billions, is this morally right or wrong?
STEP 1:
1. State your proposed act as a maxim:
"van Dijk will take ZAR 1.9 billion (A) when he's done a year's work (C) in order to get really,
really rich (E)."
2. Restate this maxim as a universal law;
"All people (7 billion of them) will take ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a year's work in order
to become really, really rich."
3. Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law; and finally;
if all 7 billion people in this world were to be paid 1.9 billion for a year's work,
Suppose all 7 billion people in this world are paid 1.9 billion ZAR for a year's work. This act will
impact the economic cycle in several ways. If most humans decide to stop working, the problem
of scarcity increases in human resources and other resources such as land, and the unlimited wants
and needs of humans will be harder to satisfy. The world will be chaos. Money will only keep
humanity satisfied for a short amount of time until they need more. I can say with all confidence
that the universal maxim is not conceivable.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world.
I would not act on the maxim because I do not believe that money should be the primary goal for
humanity. I firmly believe that your true wealth comes from doing what you love, which will
automatically result in dedicated hard work. This dedication and willingness is a clear example
of intrinsic motivation.
After a while, the wealthy lifestyle of humans would not be long-term satisfactory because humans
will always strive for more, as shown by Maslow's hierarchy. Employment itself satisfies more
than the first stage of human satisfaction and contributes to other positive factors.
Looking from an economic perspective, humans have unlimited needs and wants with limited
resources. The increased sudden demand for human resources, land, buildings, products, and
services will result in chaos. The economy must survive. I believe that the moment the scarcity
problem increases, new technology such as machines and robots might easily replace humans. The
business itself can make even more profit without the cost of labor. The economy can adapt, but
the unemployed human will stay unemployed. The money they gained from that one year will not
last forever.
Bob van Dijk and his billions, is this morally right or wrong?
STEP 1:
1. State your proposed act as a maxim:
"van Dijk will take ZAR 1.9 billion (A) when he's done a year's work (C) in order to get really,
really rich (E)."
2. Restate this maxim as a universal law;
"All people (7 billion of them) will take ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a year's work in order
to become really, really rich."
3. Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law; and finally;
if all 7 billion people in this world were to be paid 1.9 billion for a year's work,
Suppose all 7 billion people in this world are paid 1.9 billion ZAR for a year's work. This act will
impact the economic cycle in several ways. If most humans decide to stop working, the problem
of scarcity increases in human resources and other resources such as land, and the unlimited wants
and needs of humans will be harder to satisfy. The world will be chaos. Money will only keep
humanity satisfied for a short amount of time until they need more. I can say with all confidence
that the universal maxim is not conceivable.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world.
I would not act on the maxim because I do not believe that money should be the primary goal for
humanity. I firmly believe that your true wealth comes from doing what you love, which will
automatically result in dedicated hard work. This dedication and willingness is a clear example
of intrinsic motivation.
After a while, the wealthy lifestyle of humans would not be long-term satisfactory because humans
will always strive for more, as shown by Maslow's hierarchy. Employment itself satisfies more
than the first stage of human satisfaction and contributes to other positive factors.
Looking from an economic perspective, humans have unlimited needs and wants with limited
resources. The increased sudden demand for human resources, land, buildings, products, and
services will result in chaos. The economy must survive. I believe that the moment the scarcity
problem increases, new technology such as machines and robots might easily replace humans. The
business itself can make even more profit without the cost of labor. The economy can adapt, but
the unemployed human will stay unemployed. The money they gained from that one year will not
last forever.
