Many economic theories are based on the assumption that businesses exist to maximize profits. Neoclassical economists (mainstream) use the profit motive as an axiom to build economic models. Making money is seen as the single purpose for all business. — Wheatley

Many economic models are also just that, model -- not as easy to put to work in reality. And yes, while profit is the goal of doing business -- you don't spend money and workforce just to have losses -- this has been simplified too much. Rational economic principles include ethical business practices. But just because there exist rational economic principles, it doesn't mean we are not going to have the problem of bad business owners.

Anyway, maximizing profit must take into account the working condition of the workers/employees since labor is one of the most costly expenditures of a business. It's like pulling a rope -- you pull too much on one end and it stresses the other end. You can't cut corners without consequences, and you ask yourself, are these consequences something I could live with or is it going to drive the business to the ground?

Profit! Output > Input? Sacrilege! Unnatural! Sorcery!

Does nature make a profit?

There was this Triad: God, Man, Nature. They made sense together, because God created Man 'in His image'. This gives Man an 'unnatural aspect' - no one would have put it that way, but you are atheistic scum so it doesn't matter. So the existence of God is what keeps Man and Nature separate and distinct. — unenlightened

So you are bordering on my previous thread about the "forced game". There is no way around the need for survival, which requires some system of work and cooperation. We don't seem to survive easily Robinson Crusoe style (which is still its own single player game). Anyways, my point is that there is no way around an economic system which by its very nature causes strife and challenges. The problem has to be rewinded to an earlier point.. the point of birth itself. Simply DON'T put more players into the economic game with its inevitable "dealing with" aspect. Once born, we MUST deal with the game.

So this gives the larger context, is forcing people into a game wrong? Absolutely. The cost of not playing correctly (or at all) is death. You must "deal with" and "learn to like the game" or live other sub-optimal options. It is an injustice to put people into a situation of a forced game, even if that game is the whole of life itself. No one said because it's "life" it's default "good" to be put into the situation of life. That should not be assumed.

There are no other options, aside from enslaving others. How is this a socially acceptable debate? — Outlander

There are other options of course- don't put people into the game in the first place. However, you are right in the sentiment that once born, there are no other options but to play SOME economic game. The game itself doesn't matter. The injustice of having to play ANY economic game is what I'm interested in. That is brought about from the condition of birth, which is my biggest concern as that is the first injustice. Everything else follows.

\

There are other options of course- don't put people into the game in the first place. However, you are right in the sentiment that once born, there are no other options but to play SOME economic game. The game itself doesn't matter. The injustice of having to play ANY economic game is what I'm interested in. That is brought about from the condition of birth, which is my biggest concern as that is the first injustice. Everything else follows. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps someone who's not you doesn't view life and it's benefits, rewards, and yes as you obsess over it's negatives, drawbacks, and moments of torment as a 'game' but something greater? I'd wager many non-theists would agree with me and others as this fact being relevant enough to spur religion itself now, wouldn't you?

Perhaps someone who's not you doesn't view life and it's benefits, rewards, and yes as you obsess over it's negatives, drawbacks, and moments of torment as a 'game' but something greater? I'd wager many non-theists would agree with me and others as this fact being relevant enough to spur religion itself now, wouldn't you? — Outlander

To create someone and have them go through challenges for no reason other than “views life as some grand thing” is still wrong. Not an excuse to make people deal with a lifetime of the overcoming challenges game just because YOU (the procreate) have some agenda you want to see enacted. Mind you I think this is wrong to create, even if someone reported “I like the game created for me to play”. I simply view the forced game as an injustice similar to the “happy slave” who is happy as a slave but is in an unjust position.

Added more.

To operate a business and employ others one needs the profit to do so, but he must also cover the costs of his forced labor whenever the state comes around to take it. So of course the profit motive exists.