Crime of Calculation

A friend of mine is looking to get a new car (he has to), but due circumstances (like most of us), he is trying to be careful with his finances. He wants a full EV, but because of the cost, is considering a hybrid instead. However, unlike my normal stance on consumption, I think *he should* get what he wants.  The reason is that he isn't buying the car with cash, he will get it on finance, and the monthly difference is going to be insignificant to him, as he isn't likely to use the saved gap for anything better anyway. However, if he gets the hybrid, no matter how much he tries to justify the monetary saving, every time he gets in it, every time he sees an EVC, he is going to be disappointed *in himself.* Because, he is someone who believes that choosing an EV is a better choice for the environment, which means *not getting an EV* makes an impact on his moral position. Alternatively, if he buys the EV he wants, the monthly payments aren't that much more, but every time he gets into his car, he doesn't feel like he has missed out, and he gets the sense that he has done the right thing, even if it isn't necessarily true. There is *personal* value in maintaining a consistent moral stance, and for him as someone who has been espousing environmental sustainability for many years, there is value in making the shift. While earlier the financial "gap" might have been too large, as prices have closed and his salary increased, he can afford to *take the risk* and trade that gap cash for a sense of personal integrity. >Personal integrity. It only really seems to be adhered to when convenient to do so, these days. If the incentives are high enough, people will find any number of ways to justify the selling of their moral position for profit. >Integrity is demonstrated when you believe no one will ever know what you have done. We live in a world where people record everything they do with the intention of sharing it publicly with strangers. What we post online of ourselves, is not reflective of our integrity, because we are doing it for an audience, knowing that people are going to see it and judge us. And, we *want* them to judge us, as long as the judgement supports the outcome we desire - which other than for the masochists, is generally favorable. Some people seem to think that having integrity is sticking to their guns, holding onto their beliefs, but I don't see it this way at all. For me, integrity is doing what we believe is right to do at the time, but if we find out that it is no longer the right thing to do, or there are better ways, we change. However, if we are actively avoiding information that contradicts our belief, we do not have integrity. From my own experience, a lot of passionate religious people, *don't have integrity* because they aren't willing to entertain the idea that they are wrong, let alone actively seek to prove their position false. If their belief has integrity, it will hold up under *all scrutiny* - yet they seem afraid that the bridge they have built to get to their heaven, is missing some load-bearing supports and might collapse, if inspected too closely. While it is untested, it stands. Similarly, a lot of traders don't have integrity, because they will actively seek to make the highest returns on their investments, even if what they are investing into is harmful. They justify this in many ways for instance, saying that others are going to invest and make profits, so it is better I have the money than those assholes. Where there is demand, there will be supply, if the incentive to supply is high enough. Using the same justification, there are people who sell children into sexual slavery, because if they don't, someone else is going to anyway. So what they do is weigh up the costs of being caught, to the potential for making money and if the ratio is acceptable, they will do it. >It is a crime of calculation. They say "be true to yourself", yet how many of us are *truly* acting in a way that closely matches our moral position? How many of us are justifying our bad behaviors, because we think it is leading to some kind of greater good? > Behind closed doors. At least publicly, the majority of trading is blind, meaning that we don't know who is buying and selling what and in what kinds of volumes. Similarly, we don't know what all those religious people who pray each day, do that conflicts with their belief systems once they feel they aren't being watched. > If they saw themselves objectively, would they consider themselves good? Unfortunately, we have created and support an economy that is so heavily flawed, it doesn't *serve us.* It is designed to serve power, corporate entities, and the maximization of itself, not the wellbeing of humanity. But, rather than shine a light on the economic beliefs we hold as bridges in the economy and test the integrity, we keep looking to buy into it, even when we know what we are buying, goes against our morals and *won't make a difference* in the world we live. > We keep trying to make ends meet. *But the ends will never meet,* because they aren't made to. The economy is designed to run at a deficit for the majority, so it can run at a surplus for the minority, because that is how power is gained and maintained. That is the purpose of a centralized economy. It isn't about facilitating greater equality of opportunity, it is about restricting access, bottlenecking supply, and creating unnatural scarcity in resources that don't matter, so a few people can take ownership of the few that do. Making a difference isn't a change in belief, it is a change in behavior. And, if we want to actually make a positive difference toward what we believe would be a better world, we are going to have to put our *resources* where our mouth is and, >*Incentivize the change we want to see in the world.* It comes at a cost. Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]