I’m wondering if that is the prosecutions statement in the implications of Christianity or if it is actually a textual attack on the Immigration policies. Mighty unethical in its presentation, and certainly opens the proverbial Pandora’s Box.
You are a genius Mike M and you did not know it.
Perhaps Sir Arthur Keith’s Evolution and ethics should be on top of your literature objectives soon.
Cic. in Lucullo: Dialecticam inventam esse, veri et falsi quasi disceptatricem. Topica, c. 2: Stoici enim judicandi vias diligenter persecuti sunt, ea scientia, quam Dialecticen appellant.
Hmmmmmm.

MikeM, it is obvious you are running out of ideas, as you resort to that ultimate device - rubbishing a claim I did not make.

>>[Pericles] claims that the measure of ethical conduct is commercial success<<

Your source for this can only be your imagination, since I have never made such a claim nor ever will.

The extreme example of commercial success I most commonly use - Microsoft - I present as a classic example of how a complete lack of ethics leads to astounding commercial success. To accuse me of holding the opposite view demonstrates how low you need to stoop in order to attempt to score a point.

Let's take a quick checkpoint on "who said what".

Your contention is that everybody should learn ethics.

>>I am astonished by the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training<<

You justified this by implying that a body of people (engineers) have managed to avoid a repetition of the Westgate Bridge disaster, because they now have a code of ethics.

You immediately contradict yourself by pointing out that Enron had a 64-page code of ethics but that "not everyone followed its admonition to conduct the business in a "moral and honest manner"

So it is not instruction that is lacking, is it?

Where the system falls apart is not in the teaching part, which simply allows lazy academics a financial sinecure for teaching that motherhood is, by and large, a good thing.

It is the fact that the law is far too light on the results of poor ethical choices.

A current classic example is the failure of the Department of Public Prosecutions to take any action against Rob Gerard, who was allowed to "settle" a tax bill for $150 million after a fourteen year investigation

http://afr.com/articles/2005/11/28/1133026405863.html

...and was then proposed by our Treasurer for a position on the Board of the Reserve Bank.

Only when we see a raft of ministerial resignations, followed up with some serious jail time, will anyone even start to take ethics seriously.

Pericles wrote, "I have never made such a claim, and never will."

You cannot know what you will do in future, but let's look at what you did, old son.

About a discussion on ethics of search engines, you wrote, "What absolute hogwash!"

If ethics are hogwash, what are you suggesting? That search engine proprietors do everything possible to avoid that "advertising revenue will dry up and it will disappear".

No quite "Greed is Good", but fair try.

Are you having trouble remembering what you have written, Pericles? It's a good plan to review it before posting again.

Professional engineers' codes of ethics long predate the Westgate Bridge disaster. Codes cannot prevent such disasters - they didn't. I never claimed that they could. However the Royal Commission and subsequent court cases found breaches of ethics codes were major issues.

Honestly, Pericles, you are an enigma. You seem able to spell and to form grammatically correct sentences, but to know nothing.

Implementing a code of ethics involves more than preparing a booklet. You somehow fail to understand.

You write, "I present [Microsoft] as a classic example of how a complete lack of ethics leads to astounding commercial success".

Yes, we know Microsoft was Googlebombed with "more evil than satan himself" in October 1999, http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2167621

But does that prove "a complete lack of ethics".

You write, "It is the fact that the law is far too light on the results of poor ethical choices."

The law sometimes bears on consequence of ethical choices, but often not. They are separate, if overlapping, domains. Were you never taught that?

Is there totalitarianism in your thinking? If, like Uday Hussein, you owned a soccer team, would you punish them for failing to win a game?

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/27_uday.html

If Microsoft's conduct constitutes a crime, do let us into what that might be, and what punishment would make the world a fairer, better and (if you can eventually grasp the term) more ethical place.

Once again, you deliberately misrepresent me in the pursuit of scoring points. Nobody's keeping score, by the way.

"Hogwash" was, and still is, my observation on the arguments and conclusions contained in that highly superficial skim over the mechanics of search engine technology.

The case I put forward is something far more radical than greed is good. That in the case of search engine technology, it is precisely a lack of ethics that will drive them out of business.

Google built its business on the relevance of the results it uncovered. Without this relevance, it dies - people will stop using it, and turn to another engine. Their revenue will dry up, they will cease to exist.

If they do not remain vigilant to the opportunities for corruption of their results, they will go out of business. That is one of the (many) reasons why they change the algorithms regularly - to make sure, as best they can, that the system is not manipulated.

This is the reason I described the item as hogwash.

As for Microsoft, you are simply grasping at straws. My statement had nothing to do with Google-bombing, but the result of the DoJ case. The company was found guilty of using its monopolistic position for competitive advantage. Some of the testimony from their own people provides ample illustration of their complete disregard of ethical considerations in the construction of their business plans.

Have a look at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/trial.html and judge for yourself how ethical were their OEM policies, for example.

To summarise:

i)it is possible to run a very successful business that runs entirely on ethical choices, and that a business does not need formal ethics training in order to be successful

ii)it is possible to run a very successful business entirely without ethics, and that no amount of formal ethics training will change this

I am surprised to have to walk you through this in such simple terms, but I hope you find the insight valuable.

Pericles is somehow convinced that Microsoft is "a classic example of how a complete lack of ethics leads to astounding commercial success."

What might "a complete lack of ethics" look like? Pericles presumably alludes to allegations contained in antitrust suits.

He is as well informed on antitrust law as on ethics.

Monopolies are not illegal; what is, is damaging customers' interests. Microsoft admitted practices deserving slaps on the wrist, but hearings lacked convincing evidence that it damaged consumers' interests. Initial ruling that the company should be split has sunk into the obscurity that, in my opinion, it deserved.

Indeed, growing popularity of OpenOffice (which I use), Firefox and Linux (which I don't) confirms that computer owners have choices. In a previous life as an executive I sometimes negotiated with Microsoft. I found the company to be sometimes irritatingly difficult but always ethical.

The New York Times carried a report on Sunday on US CEOs' remuneration rates:

QUOTE
The average total pay for chief executives rose 27 percent, to $11.3 million, according to a survey of 200 large companies [last year].

The 123 chief executives included in the survey for the last three years saw their compensation increase, on average, 15 percent, to $11.4 million in 2005. Last year, their pay was up almost 30 percent, to $10.2 million...

While ordinary workers' wages and benefits were squeezed last year, chief executives were largely immune from those pressures...
END QUOTE

Highest paid CEO last year was Ray Irani, Occidental Petroleum CEO, who walked away with $63 million. (What the hell does he do with it all?)

Lowest paid? Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, $309,000.

Second lowest? Steven Bullmer on $1.009 million heading a company displaying "a complete lack of ethics".

Pericles, have it your way, old son. If you enjoy your delusions, why spoil them?

"It is possible to run a very successful business entirely without ethics, and that no amount of formal ethics training will change this."

Examples?

Pericles, you aren't a financial advisor by any chance who was recommending Westpoint promissory notes?

Westpoint wasn't actually successful, was it?

MikeM, it sometimes helps to know a little whereof you speak, but I have noticed that you don't necessarily view this as an impediment.

>>[Pericles] is as well informed on antitrust law as on ethics. Monopolies are not illegal; what is, is damaging customers' interests <<

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's verdict was that “Microsoft had abused its monopoly in personal computer software, harming consumers and competitors”.

You will note that he observed Microsoft had damaged competitors, not just consumers. In the politically-motivated settlement that followed, this constituency didn't get a look-in.

>>Microsoft admitted practices deserving slaps on the wrist...<<

Now you see, that's the kind of statement that undermines any credibility you believe that you have. Microsoft admitted nothing, either then or now. They make a virtue of admitting nothing.

It may have also come to your attention that they have been found guilty of similar charges by the EU.

“Microsoft antitrust verdict – guilty and €497m fine”

They are still fighting that one, of course. Admit nothing. Call in the lobbyists (that they pay handsomely) and keep fighting. It's Microsoft, therefore it is the rest of the world that is out of step.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

But don't take my word for it. This comment is taken from an article by Rushworth M. Kidder of the Institute for Global Ethics:

“What caused [Judge Jackson's] finding? Put simply, a lack of ethics. Microsoft said it was not colluding to control the market. Yes, it was, said the court.”

Google Microsoft ethics. I got “about 18,800,000 hits”, and I couldn't find one article that had a good word to say about them. Not that I looked through all 18,800,000, you understand.

Incidentally, if I had Warren Buffet's $44 billion, or Steve Ballmer's $12.1 billion, I wouldn't bother with a salary either. In fact, I wouldn't even relieve the company of the odd lazy million. I'd do a Steve Jobs...

“Apple Computer chief executive Steve Jobs received a $1 salary and no other compensation for fiscal year 2005, unchanged from the previous year.” AppleInsider March 2006