Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidgow77 It results in the company being the raison d'etre for people's actions, whereas I think companies should exist to facilitate what people want to achieve, not what the company, over certain time periods, asserts is necessary for its own survival. |
While I agree that should be the case, it clearly isn't. The issue lies with the people in control. They view the viability of their company as an extension of their own viability. If the company fails their chances of surviving decrease.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidgow77 If someone took away my right to freedom of speech, or my right to a fair trial, or my human rights, I would attack the people responsible, and I wouldn't really care if I died in the process. |
Why were these concepts created? It wasn't through altruistic elightenment but through the realization that these ideals make survival easier.
From a survival point of view, not you personally, willing to die for ones ideals is an aberrated survival skill. It's basically saying, "That which helps me survive is being threatend. If that means of survival is taken away I will be unable to survive. Thus, I will do whatever it takes to ensure that means is not taken away."
However, I believe this highlights one major difference between humans and other living things: choice. Non-human organisms are puppets to the survival command; it says jump; they jump. Humans on the other hand can choose to override the command.
For example, take the idea of self-defense. A noble ideal is the belief that you shouldn't hurt another person but what happens when we are attacked? We defend ourselves, often at the cost of the other person's well being. A person who is able to override the survival command and holds the aforementioned ideal would not even defend themselves since doing so would risk injuring the other person.