(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . A Jaundiced Eye Weeps for Friedman's Desolation [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2023-09-29 The reductio ad absurdum method is quite common in logic and mathematics proofs. It is often much easier than directly proving the theorem under consideration. A reductio ad absurdum argument can apply to many situations, but it is most easily understood in existence/uniqueness theorems. As an illustrative example, consider the theorem: There is no largest prime number; they go on forever. By far the simplest way to prove this theorem is to assume its opposite (rigorously, its converse): that there is a definite, unique, largest prime number, call it N. A bit of reasoning from this assumption will quickly lead to a falsehood, a contradiction, an absurdity. In this case, you can pretty easily construct a prime number greater than N, which is a contradiction. Therefore the assumption is false and its converse (the theorem) is true. But the reductio ad absurdum is not only a method of proof. It can also be a logical fallacy. Which leads us to our anti-hero, the Prophet of Profit. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits” — Milton Friedman, Ph.D. This is the title of a 1970 essay published in the New York Times. Except for omitting the word Sole, as in “ Sole Social Responsibility,” the title is basically the whole essay. But, you need a few thousand words, preferably polysyllabic, sarcastic, and condescending, to play the Serious Thinking Man part. A couple gems excerpted for your consideration: ‘The difficulty of exercising “social responsibility” illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise — it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to “exploit” other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes.’ — Ibid. What absolute horseshit. This gaslighting is false in so many ways I don’t know where to begin. ‘There are no “social” values, no “social” responsibilities in any [business] sense’ — Ibid. Um, that is a frightening sentiment. It is hard to overstate the acclaim, influence, and obeisance accorded the so-called Friedman Doctrine in the Anglophone world. The Prophet himself states, in the Grey Lady to boot, that not only is the naked, predatory greed of rich men the very pinnacle of business ethics and an obvious overall social goodness, but also argues that anything less is raging and catastrophic Socialism. This thesis is why, 17 years later, Gordon Gekko’s infamous “Greed is good!” would never be greeted with howls of derision in the theater. This essay was mentioned often, with reverence, in my youthful circles. I knew a number of Christican influencers who were just fine with “Greed is good.” I feel ill recalling this. Bulworth never stood a chance against Mittens. Some years later I bothered to actually read it again, thoroughly instead of worshipfully, and to think through its logical sequelae. Doh! “My hands are tied.” — Charles Feaux, Ph.D. The only concession Friedman acknowledges in the formulation of his profit-absolutist ethic is legality. Let’s say Business Guy has an idea. If it is legal and if it increases shareholder value, then he must do it. To do otherwise would be to violate his fiduciary responsibility. Consider a concrete example. The Business Guy’s idea is a very profitable and legal mineral exploitation, but it will ruin the environment of a state, say, Wyoming. Well, then he must do it. To do otherwise would be to violate his fiduciary responsibility. A step more extreme: Let’s say the exploitation idea will ruin the environment of a nation. Still, he must do it. To do otherwise would violate fiduciary responsibility. Take the real-world example. The fossil fuel industry leaders have known for fifty years that unbridled growth of extraction and sales of their products will ruin the world. Yet they must do it. To do otherwise would be to violate fundamental business ethics. This is obviously ridiculous. A system of “ethics” guaranteed to destroy our world would be a defining example of absurdity—the most literal reductio ad absurdum imaginable. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/9/29/2196287/-A-Jaundiced-Eye-Weeps-for-Friedman-s-Desolation Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/