It may sound controversial, but I think what Mr. Tuld, the CEO in the film decided to do is reasonable from a realistic perspective. His behavior may be wrong based on some principles of moral philosophy, but he did effectively help the firm survive the financial crisis. However, successful as Mr. Tuld was, I don’t think he led a meaningful life.
If we decide to take a moral philosophical perspective, we may find tons of reasons to blame Mr. Tuld. After all, he really was “selling something that he knew has no value”. Therefore, he used others as means to achieve his own goals and he sacrificed interests of others for his own good. And clearly we can say that his behavior is wrong and unethical.
But is this blame instructive for us in reality? I think the answer is no because I believe that human nature is so complicated that there is no absolute right or wrong in this world. As J.P. Morgan said, “A man always has two reasons for what he does—a good one, and the real one”. In reality, people always say one thing and do another. Of course sitting here writing this essay, I can make the strongest criticism of him; however if I were in his situation, I believe I would do exactly the same thing. It is nothing else but human nature. And I believe anyone who wanted to make the firm survive and continue to grow better would do exactly the same thing and justify his or her behavior by “it’s just selling to willing buyers at the current fair market price”.
You may think it is not true because Sam Rogers, the head of the trading department, disagreed with Tuld, holding the opinion that they may lost their clients afterwards. But I think deep down in his heart, Sam wanted the firm to survive, too. Therefore what they really disagreed is whether “stopping the potential loss timely” or “maintaining long-term clients” is more important for the firm’s interests. As far as I can see, “stopping the potential loss timely”, suggested by Tuld, is more realistic because you have to make sure that you are still in the game first. Of course Sam was reluctant to do so partly because it conflicted with his moral principles, but afterwards, he still executed the order of Tuld and he did fail to resign in the end. For me, it is just “saying one thing and doing another” happening again. Noble as Sam, he could not escape the fate of human nature either.
The world of finance is so intensely competitive. It is so close to money that it magnified the weakness of human nature. In this world of finance, moral principles are so fragile. The only principle that is universal and timeless is survival of the fittest.
But this is not the end of my reflection. All the discussion above is based on the assumption that the only goal we want to pursue is to be successful in the world of finance. Does success and wealth guarantee a meaningful life? That seems like a very important question that has been neglected. Admittedly, Mr. Tuld was very successful and not only did he manage to survive the financial crisis but he also made a fortune buy selling those products. But then where should the story go?
When it comes to the meaning of life, I think Ray Dalio, the former CEO of Bridge Water Associate, who is also my role model, totally expresses what I think: meaningful life means meaningful work and meaningful relationships. As far as I understand, meaningful work means you are called by a mission that you are willing to dedicate your time and effort not only because it pays you well, but also because you truly believe it is meaningful to the society or the world. And meaningful relationships are relationships where people have deep connections with each other, share the same values and goals, and truly trust each other. To be honest, I don’t see Mr. Tuld had neither of them. Clearly he didn’t have meaningful relationships; and his work was only a mean to make money and a mean for him to show that he was better than others so that he could feel that he was alive. That is by no means meaningful work.
To make work and relationships meaningful, one inevitably should care about others and should preserve some idealism for humanity and society. As litterateur Yutang Lin said, “Realism without idealism is equivalent to animal being”. What makes us human being special is that we still have compassion for others. I mention human nature a lot in this essay, and I think one of the meanings of life is to fight against weakness of human nature. It is not easy at all, but if we want a meaningful life, we have no choice but fight against it, because we don’t want to live like a pure animal being.
In fact, lots of ancient and modern sages have similar opinion on this issue. Christianity emphasizes good deeds; Confucian culture emphasizes the heart of compassion and the principle of “treating people the way you want to be treated”; great philosopher Bertrand Russell says one of the three strong passions that has governed his life is the unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind; and Ray Dalio, great practitioner in the world of finance says as he grows older, personal success is less and less important for him, and now he aims to help others to be successful from his wisdom of life. That’s why he wrote the book Principles.
Now my view is clear: what Mr. Tuld did is reasonable from a realistic perspective; it is even smart to some extent. But he did not live a meaningful life because he showed no compassion for others’ misery.
In the end of the film, Sam buried his dog in the backyard of his ex-wife. I think what he buried was not only his dog, but also his moral principles and original heart. The sound of the shovel digging the ground didn’t stop as the film stopped, and what I hear is the sound of a dying soul.
P.S. 此文是研究生商业伦理课的作业，写完后感觉把自己一年来的想法的变化都串起来了，于是顺手贴到豆瓣里来。
华尔街的黑色交易
