A lot of words were spilled over EA's business practices concerning overtime pay towards its employees sometime back during late 2004.

-The initial blog by "ea_spouse" that started it all:
[link]

-Online article on EA's recent responses to the allegations:
[link]

-Response by EA VP of Human Resources Rusty Rueff to the recent
fiasco: [link]

-Recent NY Times article on EA:
[link]artner=rssuserland



The lofty goal and purpose of any sort of communication is to seek the truth, regardless of how the truth might affect our own personal comfort.

Some thoughts come to mind when contemplating the above EA scenario, along with the subsequent article written by the anonymous "ea_spouse". The question of "truth" arises, and along with it our responsibility to be bound to such truth if it exists. If it does not, if no "absolute truth" is out there to be found (as many an evolutionist such as Gould would espouse), then we are essentially boundless in our opportunism in dealing fast and loose with "facts" (Again, Gould is well acquainted with this area, or was rather).

Following from either the existence or non-existence of "truth", it stands to reason then: If huge corporations interfere with our own personal lives for the sake of profit, wherein can we become indignant that they have somehow "wronged" us, unless we recognize that there are such things as absolute truth, and with it a transcending basis for justice?

Otherwise, one might get the impression that such actions that benefit a select few at the expense of others really can't be called "wrong", so long as we ourselves are either on the receiving end of the benefit or are otherwise unaffected. (Apathy towards the suffering of others would not be a "wrong" either, if absolute truth does not exist. No harm done if it isn't seen.... or cared for.)

"But it's wrong", someone says; "How can a powerful corporation do that to it's employees!" Wrong? "Wrong" in regards to what? Given the materialist/relativist view, we honestly can only see how this EA fiasco immediately affects one or two reproducing organisms in the midst of several billion others. And if it went on beyond that? Onto larger scores of other reproducing organisms? Why, (given the materialist POV once again) who cares! Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we (meaning the individual) will die anyway. Grab what you can while the grabbin's good! (That's what you want, materialist: Reduce the human being to a "thing", and don't be too surprised when others follow what Dawkins imagined was the "selfish gene" in all of them.)

Why care about the welfare of one? Or of many? If "wrong" is arbitrary, so too are your own protests when the thief grabs away your own belongings. After all, the thief does what's in the thief's best interests; no "wrong" in that, since no "wrong" exists by your standards. Only survival of the fittest (in other words, "survival of the most ruthlessly cunning and opportunistic"....)

And what care would any of us have for one that you love being "wronged"? (This is especially relevant to ea_spouse's claim.) Should it keep us up at night that they, this stranger to us, suffer nightly from sickness and exhaustion because they've been overworked by their opportunistic overseers? (Again, that suffering of one organism in several billion doesn't pang those who are anesthetized to the reality that "all men are created (not evolved) equal, with certain inalienable rights".)

If you recognize that humanity is created, and possesses an internal quality, placed there by their Creator, then there is no conflict; people taking advantage of others by means of greed is wrong. We would be advocates for, say, "ea_spouse's" significant other, since we would see them as a fully endowed human being, made in the image of their Creator, who ought not be misused by greedy executives at EA. We would empathize and feel for this significant other, in both their trials with corporate opportunists and in other areas of life (since the poor lad may suffer from physical ailements, medical conditions, or the like). In short, we would recognize both "ea_spouse" and their significant other as "neighbors", as Christ the Creator commanded.

But if you've subscribed to that other philosophy (religion actually) of humanism, wherein you affirm (believe) that the universe is self existing and not created, and that humanity is but a randomly allocated organic product of that accident....

But surely, the author behind the ea_spouse article doesn't believe that.

For their own sake and dignity, and the dignity of those that surround them, I honestly hope not...

And following from our inital premise, if we still believed in the relative nature of "truth", we might in addition pull up a false analogy that majority opinion decides what is right, if truth and "right/wrong" are only a relative thing (In which case, I suppose that the Bolsheviks or even the Nazis can't be held to doing any "wrong", since those majorities voted "for". The Eichmann and Nuremberg trials would simply be an exercize in futility if such relativism/nihilism were true, as would any attempt to hold a large corporation liable for "wronging" its employees).

Thankfully, it is only in the materialist's/relativist's world view that "Survive at any price" and "My belly is my god" become the absolute law. It is only the relativist who sews their own mouth shut when trying to condemn others for "wronging" them (or when they become enraged over such entities as EA doing "wrong").

But we are not of the kind who write off truth, justice, and morality (and the binding thread which connects them all) for the sake of our own personal gain. Nor do we accept the above lofty concepts when it is convenient, only to throw it off when we realize that all of the above qualities direct us towards a Law Giver. (Think for a moment: Fair treatment of employees all of the time? Or only when shares are up? Monogamy all of the time? Or only when it suits to benefit only you? And wherein can you find justice if and when your work or your spouse decide that such binding concepts aren't for them? As in the case with monogamy, what happens when that significant other finds that no one is looking?)

No, we are not of such opportunists or obscurantists. Nor are we so illogical that we would disregard the basis for absolute truth while trying to appeal to some theistic sense of "right and wrong" for our own cause. And we would never appeal to direct slander, nor accusation, nor physical threats, nor interfering excessively into one's personal life; because in doing so, we may extinguish the search for justice and absolute truth, correct? (For it may be that we are not privy to the entire story, largely due to carefully selected or outright omissions of information which were delivered to us from what we thought were reliable sources, and which have thus misguided us. Rashly threatening someone on the basis of intentional half-truths does not a responsible journalist make.)


In short, we aren't antithetical to truth; are we "ea_spouse"?

...Are we?