NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AGAINST PONZI
SCHEMES NIGERIA: A PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION
Towards the end of last year (2016), the National assembly took a swipe at Ponzi schemes in Nigerian even ordering the EFCC to get the inventors arrested. Many believe that this is one of the contributory factor to the fall of Ponzi schemes especially MMM Nigeria. Many commended the action of the National Assembly against Ponzi schemes and hold it was done to the best interest of the country and the citizenry. It was to save Nigerians from what happened in other countries. However, for my own part, I consider the actions of the National Assembly to be immature, bereft of incisiveness and ingenuity, typical of third world countries. I strongly hold this opinion of my because of the following reasons:
a. It is a fallacy of over generalization to conclude that for the fact that MMM failed in other countries, that MMM and other Ponzi schemes would also fail in Nigeria. Such pessimistic attitude is found among developing countries of the world.
b. The knowledge of History creates awareness of the past and the present so that we can predict what the future would be like. This does not necessarily mean that we abscond from what would seem to fail in the future but to begin on time to avoid those things that would cause failure and uphold those things that would bring success. Hence the National Assembly instead of discouraging Nigerians to stop investing in Ponzi Schemes could have planned how to prevent the possible failure of Ponzi Schemes as was the case in other countries, considering that it has been of great benefit to citizens especially in times like this when about forty percent of graduates are jobless and the economy is in recession.
WHAT IS THE MORAL STAND OF PONZI SCHEMES?
The issue of stating the morality of an action, event or thing is as old as man because in all our day to day activities, humans always have to make one moral judgment or the other. Our moral judgements are based on our expectations that people ought to behave in a certain way and not the other. In like manner ones expectations are based on ones moral standing, it is from this moral standing as a foundation that one makes a careful inquiry and critical judgement. Morality therefore is the goodness or badness of human conduct or act. It is the standard or canon to which a human action or conduct is compared (Ekwutosi, 2006) and it helps to acess whether an action is good or bad.
The sophists would argue that morality is relative; relativity here implies that the moral rectitude or turpitude of an action is dependent on the way man either individually or collectively view such action, hence it is purely subjective. But Socrates has a contrary opinion that morality is objective and a universal concept that is founded on reason. Morality for Socrates is not an expression of social customs based on emotions that is mutable with respect to time and place. The question of the subjectivity and relativity of morality has been a subject for debate over a long period of time but with the discovery of some ethical or moral theories, it became easier to say if an action is morally right or wrong.
Therefore in determining the morality of Ponzi schemes, we should evaluate it using the moral theories as a yardstick, to know if any can fault Ponzi schemes. There are three main moral theories and they include; a) Consequentialism b) Deontologism c) Rights ethics.
CONSEQUENTIST MORAL THEORY VIZ A VIZ PONZI SCHEMES
This moral theory looks at the consequence of various answers and considers ethically the consequence which has the greatest number of advantages over disadvantages. This simply means that consequentialist theory considers moral, that action which brings greatest number of people the greatest good. This theory holds an action to be right or wrong not by evaluation of obligations but through examining the consequences of such action. Here we find moral theories of Utilitarianism and Situationism.
UTILITARIANISM: This is a simple form of Consequentialism which holds that any action which brings greatest happiness or least unhappiness to greatest number of people is morally right and should be performed. (S. Scheduler, 1988) Hence a good action is an action that is capable of making people more happy or satisfied than its alternative. Now the question, has MMM not provided greatest happiness to greatest number of people in Nigeria?
DEONTOLOGISM
This moral theory finds an act morally right when one meets up with ones obligation or duties. In this theory rules and obligations are very essentials in determining a morally good action; hence it looks at ones obligations to determine what is morally right. The common examples of Deontological ethics are Kant’s categorical imperative and the Ten Commandments.
Since action is morally right when one meets up with ones obligations. It is pertinent at this moment to ask, what are the obligations of the Government towards the citizenry and what are the obligations of the citizens towards their country? Are these two parties meeting up with their obligations? I do not think that if the Government had carried out their obligations creditably well that the citizens would have to resort to Ponzi schemes for their survival. Moreover one of the duties of a citizen is to be creative and innovative and that I think that was the case with those who invented the various Ponzi Schemes as a means to alleviate to an extent the sufferings of the poor masses which the government had neglected. Whose action among the government and inventors of Ponzi schemes is morally right and who should be incriminated?
Ponzi Schemes and the two types of Deontologists moral theory.
a. The Ten Commandments: Going through the Ten Commandments, I could not find any of the commandments of God where the Ponzi schemes directly fall short of. The major area people often talk about is that Ponzi Schemes steal people’s money but I have never seen anybody who donated his money under duress; it was always out of one’s volition. How then do theses Ponzi schemes steal money from people?
b. Kant’s Ethical theory: Immanuel Kant believes that the morality of an action is not determined by its consequences but by the intention behind it. For Immanuel Kant, good will is the only thing in the world that is without qualification. The goodness of the goodwill does not come from the result of the action because sometimes a good will by some misfortune maybe unable to produce that result which it aims at. Even in such situation, goodwill will continue to have its own unique goodness. (I. Kant: Ground work of Metaphysics of Morals, PP.3-4) Hence Kant does not consider any action morally right based on the possible consequences but on the right intention.
What do you think was the intention of Mavrodi Mundial and other inventors of Ponzi schemes? In as much as opinions might differ, I think that most of these inventors of Ponzi Schemes (esp. MMM, Twinkas, Givers Forum and TMT) had genuine intentions (goodwill) to alleviate the sufferings of the poor masses, through helping people and helping themselves. Should we blame them that their goodwill was unable to produce the result they aimed at? Kant would object to that through his moral theory.
Towards the end of last year (2016), the National assembly took a swipe at Ponzi schemes in Nigerian even ordering the EFCC to get the inventors arrested. Many believe that this is one of the contributory factor to the fall of Ponzi schemes especially MMM Nigeria. Many commended the action of the National Assembly against Ponzi schemes and hold it was done to the best interest of the country and the citizenry. It was to save Nigerians from what happened in other countries. However, for my own part, I consider the actions of the National Assembly to be immature, bereft of incisiveness and ingenuity, typical of third world countries. I strongly hold this opinion of my because of the following reasons:
a. It is a fallacy of over generalization to conclude that for the fact that MMM failed in other countries, that MMM and other Ponzi schemes would also fail in Nigeria. Such pessimistic attitude is found among developing countries of the world.
b. The knowledge of History creates awareness of the past and the present so that we can predict what the future would be like. This does not necessarily mean that we abscond from what would seem to fail in the future but to begin on time to avoid those things that would cause failure and uphold those things that would bring success. Hence the National Assembly instead of discouraging Nigerians to stop investing in Ponzi Schemes could have planned how to prevent the possible failure of Ponzi Schemes as was the case in other countries, considering that it has been of great benefit to citizens especially in times like this when about forty percent of graduates are jobless and the economy is in recession.
WHAT IS THE MORAL STAND OF PONZI SCHEMES?
The issue of stating the morality of an action, event or thing is as old as man because in all our day to day activities, humans always have to make one moral judgment or the other. Our moral judgements are based on our expectations that people ought to behave in a certain way and not the other. In like manner ones expectations are based on ones moral standing, it is from this moral standing as a foundation that one makes a careful inquiry and critical judgement. Morality therefore is the goodness or badness of human conduct or act. It is the standard or canon to which a human action or conduct is compared (Ekwutosi, 2006) and it helps to acess whether an action is good or bad.
The sophists would argue that morality is relative; relativity here implies that the moral rectitude or turpitude of an action is dependent on the way man either individually or collectively view such action, hence it is purely subjective. But Socrates has a contrary opinion that morality is objective and a universal concept that is founded on reason. Morality for Socrates is not an expression of social customs based on emotions that is mutable with respect to time and place. The question of the subjectivity and relativity of morality has been a subject for debate over a long period of time but with the discovery of some ethical or moral theories, it became easier to say if an action is morally right or wrong.
Therefore in determining the morality of Ponzi schemes, we should evaluate it using the moral theories as a yardstick, to know if any can fault Ponzi schemes. There are three main moral theories and they include; a) Consequentialism b) Deontologism c) Rights ethics.
CONSEQUENTIST MORAL THEORY VIZ A VIZ PONZI SCHEMES
This moral theory looks at the consequence of various answers and considers ethically the consequence which has the greatest number of advantages over disadvantages. This simply means that consequentialist theory considers moral, that action which brings greatest number of people the greatest good. This theory holds an action to be right or wrong not by evaluation of obligations but through examining the consequences of such action. Here we find moral theories of Utilitarianism and Situationism.
UTILITARIANISM: This is a simple form of Consequentialism which holds that any action which brings greatest happiness or least unhappiness to greatest number of people is morally right and should be performed. (S. Scheduler, 1988) Hence a good action is an action that is capable of making people more happy or satisfied than its alternative. Now the question, has MMM not provided greatest happiness to greatest number of people in Nigeria?
DEONTOLOGISM
This moral theory finds an act morally right when one meets up with ones obligation or duties. In this theory rules and obligations are very essentials in determining a morally good action; hence it looks at ones obligations to determine what is morally right. The common examples of Deontological ethics are Kant’s categorical imperative and the Ten Commandments.
Since action is morally right when one meets up with ones obligations. It is pertinent at this moment to ask, what are the obligations of the Government towards the citizenry and what are the obligations of the citizens towards their country? Are these two parties meeting up with their obligations? I do not think that if the Government had carried out their obligations creditably well that the citizens would have to resort to Ponzi schemes for their survival. Moreover one of the duties of a citizen is to be creative and innovative and that I think that was the case with those who invented the various Ponzi Schemes as a means to alleviate to an extent the sufferings of the poor masses which the government had neglected. Whose action among the government and inventors of Ponzi schemes is morally right and who should be incriminated?
Ponzi Schemes and the two types of Deontologists moral theory.
a. The Ten Commandments: Going through the Ten Commandments, I could not find any of the commandments of God where the Ponzi schemes directly fall short of. The major area people often talk about is that Ponzi Schemes steal people’s money but I have never seen anybody who donated his money under duress; it was always out of one’s volition. How then do theses Ponzi schemes steal money from people?
b. Kant’s Ethical theory: Immanuel Kant believes that the morality of an action is not determined by its consequences but by the intention behind it. For Immanuel Kant, good will is the only thing in the world that is without qualification. The goodness of the goodwill does not come from the result of the action because sometimes a good will by some misfortune maybe unable to produce that result which it aims at. Even in such situation, goodwill will continue to have its own unique goodness. (I. Kant: Ground work of Metaphysics of Morals, PP.3-4) Hence Kant does not consider any action morally right based on the possible consequences but on the right intention.
What do you think was the intention of Mavrodi Mundial and other inventors of Ponzi schemes? In as much as opinions might differ, I think that most of these inventors of Ponzi Schemes (esp. MMM, Twinkas, Givers Forum and TMT) had genuine intentions (goodwill) to alleviate the sufferings of the poor masses, through helping people and helping themselves. Should we blame them that their goodwill was unable to produce the result they aimed at? Kant would object to that through his moral theory.
- See more at:
http://forum.peaceopoly.org/blogs/cyril-ononye/4465-national-assembly-against-ponzi-schemes-nigeria-a-philosophical-reflection#sthash.D5g5vENa.dpuf
Comments
Post a Comment