Jason wrote that magical ethics are as bad as regular ethics, fucking just... whatever, do what you're going to do already, and don't worry about what the author says about it.
As happens on occasion, I may appear, at first, to disagree with him
The fact is, you don't know right from wrong, and you're really not capable of figuring it out. You might think you know right from wrong, but you don't. You just think you do.
Here's proof: Killing is wrong, right? Yeah, killing is obviously wrong. Except for sometimes. When you really start thinking about it, there are some situations that make it ok. Self defense, justifiable revenge, war, or capital punishment are obvious ones, but also... eating. You don't eat without killing something, right? Or did you just mean killing people is wrong? Or maybe only killing animals is wrong, but it's ok to kill plants to eat. Because if you don't, you're killing yourself slowly by starvation... and suicide is wrong.
Ethics... you may really think you have them. A code guides you through the conundrums of life, and yeah, maybe it's a LITTLE relative and subjective, but basically you know right and wrong, and you do your best to do the right thing when you feel like it. Most of the time. I mean, even people with ethics that don't mesh with the rest of pop culture's ethics still generally do what they think is right, don't they? On some level?
Jason had skin in a game and cursed a business, and he says it's unethical, and he's right, it's against the objective standard of good and evil that our culture holds the proletariat to in public... But there's another kind of ethics that he followed that goes deeper, the ethics of business. He was paid to do a job, not to ask questions about its right or wrongness.
But if you're worried about whether or not something is right to do, then you do indeed need to be told what's right and what's wrong. If you're stuck in duality, if you haven't grasped the truth that the Universe appears both Good and Evil while it's actually neither, then you're going to need codes of conduct to keep you from fucking yourself and others up. You need rules. You need to be ruled.*
Also, there are really stupid people in the world who think that doing things that are evil is cool. The teenage rebellion factor. They don't realize that the things people call "evil" are really just "things with unpleasant consequences." They think there's something holy to be found in dark paths and wicked pursuits.
And some of them find it, whatever, more power to them.
But here's the fucking thing: there is no right or wrong, there's only what you do, and the consequences, and whether you're happy with them or not.
Everything else is motherfucking bullshit, a lie to keep you bound to the feeding trough like the good little fat piggy you are, until they're ready to eat you. Smoked, salted, fried, chopped, baked, diced with asparagus, red potatoes, and alfredo sauce. That's right, you're a ham slice. In shrink wrap, sitting on a shelf waiting to be consumed, staying carefully in the boundaries you have to stay in until someone gets hungry.
You know how bad the economy is? It's not. The economy that can be measured, that can be regulated, that can be taxed is falling to shit, it's true, and that gives us lots of graphs and charts and headlines we can look at and freak out about, and demand more laws to make it all better.
But there's another economy that's doing great. System D. Read that article, brothers and sisters, it's where the real profit will be made for the next decade while the ethically challenged are arguing over who should be taxed more and who should be regulated more. Those not bound by ethical constructs are going to be the real winners, the way they always are. And it's not necessarily evil and damaging to anyone to participate in that kind of thing. It's really helpful, when you get down to brass tacks, and it makes the world a better place for a lot of people.
* Kings aren't worried about ethics. They do what's "right" because it's beneficial to themselves and their subjects. It's the benefit to his subjects that makes it right, not an ethical rule about it.