36 seems like an accurate score for someone going to Business School.
For the most ethical of people going to business school. Everyone else lied.
Goes to business school, shock that the people are twats. Yeah, they are going to school to learn how to be the owner class, what you expect, empathy?
I’m with the professor on this. If you self-identify as a mostly unethical person, I’d fire you too. I disagree with encouraging him to lie in the future though. 2 times out of 3, this guy says he’ll make a shady choice.
I disagree. People like this will put any of their own gain above their morality. And if we look at this rationally, sure at first that means you will start living comfortable. But if everyone does what you do, the world around you would suck. And I’m sorry, I don’t want the world around me to suck, even if I have to sacrifice some potential gain for that.
And this is why, even as a completely egotistical asshole, your goals should be noble, even if only for your own sake.
And this is also why no one should promote lying if there’s not a damn good reason. This is not a damn good reason.
If a job asks you to rate your own morality, 9/10 times it’s a shit job as jobs worth having don’t ask this kind of bullshit.
So any firing would be sparing someone from a shitty employment.
The scale is subjectively relative though. Maybe anon feels that because they eat meat, don’t recycle, don’t tip well, etc, that he is acting unethically. By that scale, he’s probably significantly much more ethical than someone without that awareness.
Plenty of self hating people from former hyper religious households out there too. A lot of people in general, who hate themselves and don’t come from a religious household.
The professor can’t be right, he said no judgement, be honest and judged an honest answer not for the frame of mind that lead anon to believe it, but rather for being honest (which he himself asked it to be), so I can’t see any valuable lesson here.
The irony being that the person who rates themselves as unethical is actually likely to be one of the most ethical people answering; someone truly unethical would’ve lied about it in the first place, or failed to even notice or acknowledge their unethicalness.
And on top of that, he’s so stupid that the 1 on 3 he does the right thing is revealing that. If not fired for being un ethical, fire because he’s an idiot.
That’s right everyone, the ethical thing to do is lie and the professor was right to publicly shame anon for not lying. What a great point to make.
Business school seems to be the exact polar opposite of therapy
American Psycho was a documentary.
Any other place you’d be on the fast track to management.
why are ethics and sustainability in the same class? They are 2 different fields. It’d be like lumping a sociology and math class together.
In a business school they’re the same thing: stuff we have to put on the syllabus so it looks like we care about them.
It’s not like they actually teach those subjects, they just need to appear on the timetable. So putting them together works fine.
Buddy, do I have news for you.
business school. you treat them both the same way.
I’m a professor at a business school. They are 2 different fields.
i think the lesson from this thread is to distrust anything you say, no (well maybe some) offense
Business ethics is the opposite of ethics.
my business ethics professor was fired for sexually abusing a student
sounds like he was a master of the subject.
So are most, it’s either rape or embezzlement. Most don’t have access to funds to embezzle so rape is more common
Oh, now I get it. So business ethics is just bizarro ethics.
Don’t you mean Blizzard ethics?
Brazzers ethics correct
basically.
ethics as long as it’s marketable and in any other situation it’s just selfishness and how to masquerade that as marketable ethics
This guy looks like Walton Goggins during the reading of Pierce’s will in Community.
Business school culture sucks, news at 11…
There’s a Harvard Professor named Richard Wolfe who always likes to tickle his audience by asking the question “Why do universities have an Economics department that’s distinct and separate from the Business School?” And then he gets into the distinctions between the western ideology around economic planning relative to the practical education around running an efficient business.
The People’s Republic of Walmart also goes into this bifrication of western understanding of efficient economic practices. Theorists preach the value of competition and choice and flexibility and auction pricing, while successful CEOs tend to prefer strict hierarchies over regional monopolies with steady schedules and well-defined quotas and flat fees.
Listening to professors who are also chief officers of companies tickle the balls of capitalistic idealogies to young adults fresh out of high school.
Agree, with arguments: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/27/bulldoze-the-business-school
On the one hand, this is a great article. On the other, I now have to go the rest of my day knowing that I said that about an article published by the Guardian.
Professor was acting unethically.
He claimed there would be no judgement, and then didn’t follow through on that condition.
He also instructed the student to lie in the future.
Where is my A+?
taking a greentext as a true story
Sounds like business ethics to me.
Ah yes. “Ethics.”
The teacher sold it to a different student who kissed his ass harder.
And the student himself acting ethically despite thinking they’re only 36/100
Hypothetically, if you kidnapped the prof, tied him up and gagged him until he gave you an A, wouldn’t you have earned it? Based on his example, and the voices in my head.
I’d say that this is one of the few exceptions to the “those who can’t do teach” stereotype being bullshit but clearly he sucks at teaching others ethics as much as he sucks at being ethical in his own behavior 🤷
Those who can’t do teach, and those who can’t teach manage. After working with normal people, teachers and managers I have concluded that managers should be excluded from homo sapiens sapiens. They are more like chimpanzees with some learnt behaviours that they don’t fully understand but will perform for a treat.
I don’t actually think I know what a manager is. I’ve always thought it was synonymous with supervisor, but I’m a supervisor and I do all the work the guys I work with do plus the “manager” responsibilities. There is no time where I’m just sitting around sipping coffee or whatever the memes are. I’m building shit and fixing the problems my team come across.
I guess I’ve just never worked in a place where I’ve had the kind of management people complain about.
well yeah. business ‘school’.
Yeah, teaching ethics at a business school is like teaching bicycle repair to a school of fish 🤷
no. it’s teaching deer behavior to rednecks with rifles and erections you REALLY don’t want to ask any questions about.
I guess I look at this as the teacher setting the tone early to disabuse the students of any false notions of what the ethics class actually is. Shame they did it in such a shitty way, but I see that as part of their point too. I’m not sure I believe the scenario is necessarily real, but if it is, the message would be appear to be that going forward everyone must understand that this isn’t going to be about how to be ethical, but how to appear to meet artificial requirements that pay lip service to ethics. A teaching to the test kind of approach.
Teaching explicitly that they should act unethically (lie about their ethical convictions) to ensure they meet future expectations of falsely signalled ethics, and teaching that through a pretty unethical act of deception and public humiliation delivers this message quite succinctly and makes it pretty clear what to expect here on in.
Probably what businesses really want is unethical people who are competent at lying about it, and the professor was giving anon practical career advice if not actually ethical advice.
They want those people as CEO’s, not as workers.
They still don’t want an honest 95%+ ethical person in any role because it might conflict with the corporation’s desire to have workers rationalize that the needs of the corporation are more important than ethics, ie not wanting to hire potential whistleblowers.
They want ethical but only to the point that they’re willing to be unethical for the corporation, but not to the point that they’d ever be unethical towards the corporation. Basically sketchy ‘ride or die’ logic
They want them even more as middle managers.
The CEO’s goal is to be able to say “we had the best intentions, I have no idea how it went so badly”, and that requires a bunch of layers of middlemen who are willing to do anything to meet targets
They still want workers who are willing to lie to protect the company. There’s a reason why whistleblowers tend to be blackballed from their industries.
What businesses want are unethical people, but only towards everyone else. To them you must always be the pretty prim diamond unicorn princess who shit’s rainbows and profit.
“And I wouldn’t want to work for a liar” is the obvious comeback to this.
Be ethical by lying about being ethical!
Look in his face and say ‘that was an 8, not a 3’
You sir are going places…maybe prison or ceo…maybe both
In business school
I think I found your problem.
