3 ms·

> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wr

> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, everyone is free to choose their own; It's a question of what likelihood you assign a-priori for ethics and morals to be chosen, and a question of empirical data as well, which likely no one has, so no statement can be disproved and everything is "equally right". (Was this paragraph about spies or about atheists?)

sametmax 9y ago
Except you are mixing individuals with groups. The NSA is not an individual. It's an entity that has no moral, composed of thousand of people with their own agenda, and nothing to check what's going on.
- beagle3 9y ago
  No, I was talking about the individuals working for the NSA, for which my statement is not confused at all. And I took "they" in the GP post to mean "the people who work for the NSA" although it possibly refers to the NSA itself - in which case, it is also true of any large corporation -- composed of thousands of people with their own agenda, no morals and very little to check what's going on in many respects -- see, e.g. pharma pricing.
erikb 9y ago
See the other subtree for more detailed opinion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14504119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14504119 In any case the major point I was trying to make is that spy agencies have side gigs that are so attractive to the governments that the spy agencies will keep their position, even if they don't do their main job well.
rubber_duck 9y ago
Even if you don't believe god is watching you you're still living in a society - if you want to be a part of it you have to follow the rules. With secrecy social repercussions go away. Everyone has some moral instincts (social animals and all that) but those can be overridden with right incentives.
coldtea 9y ago
>I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". Which is not far from true. Morals one makes for themselves ("personal moral code") are not morals proper. They could just as well include that's its ok to kill kittens for fun (to give a silly example) -- that they don't is mostly thanks to their idiosyncrasy. >There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, everyone is free to choose their own; Ha, haven't read your second paragraph while replying to the first, but basically, yes, this.
- tasuki 9y ago
  > Morals one makes for themselves ("personal moral code") are not morals proper. So what _are_ "morals proper"?
- rnentjes 9y ago
  Actually I would argue that the only "morals proper" are those that one makes for themselves. Externally enforced behavior is not "morals".
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Externally enforced behavior is not "morals". That's a new definition then, because for millennia morals were derived from exactly those "externally enforced behaviours": from religion, society, culture, etc. The personal codes someones makes on their own can be anything and everything ("shit on everybody to get rich" is a perfectly valid code that millions use). Nobody would call that "moral" though -- because precisely morals are those beyond the individual whims (though whether an individual follows them its their choice). Personal principles someone follows are only fit to be called morals if they follow an extended, external, moral code. Which might change over time, and be culture-specific, but it's not "whatever I say".
    - beagle3 9y ago
      As far as one can tell, social animals show something equivalent to morals in every experiment we can devise -- and in the vast majority of cases, it is not a learned trait (elephants being the best known counterexample in that their cultural norms and morals are indeed learned). We can't really experiment with humans, but the few experiments that have cleared ethical committees, it appears that babies as young as 6 months have a sense of equality and justice, see e.g. [0] [0] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/babies-understand-hero-actions http://www.wired.co.uk/article/babies-understand-hero-action...

sametmax 9y ago

Except you are mixing individuals with groups. The NSA is not an individual. It's an entity that has no moral, composed of thousand of people with their own agenda, and nothing to check what's going on.

beagle3 9y ago
No, I was talking about the individuals working for the NSA, for which my statement is not confused at all. And I took "they" in the GP post to mean "the people who work for the NSA" although it possibly refers to the NSA itself - in which case, it is also true of any large corporation -- composed of thousands of people with their own agenda, no morals and very little to check what's going on in many respects -- see, e.g. pharma pricing.

erikb 9y ago

See the other subtree for more detailed opinion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14504119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14504119 In any case the major point I was trying to make is that spy agencies have side gigs that are so attractive to the governments that the spy agencies will keep their position, even if they don't do their main job well.

rubber_duck 9y ago

Even if you don't believe god is watching you you're still living in a society - if you want to be a part of it you have to follow the rules. With secrecy social repercussions go away. Everyone has some moral instincts (social animals and all that) but those can be overridden with right incentives.

coldtea 9y ago

>I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". Which is not far from true. Morals one makes for themselves ("personal moral code") are not morals proper. They could just as well include that's its ok to kill kittens for fun (to give a silly example) -- that they don't is mostly thanks to their idiosyncrasy. >There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, everyone is free to choose their own; Ha, haven't read your second paragraph while replying to the first, but basically, yes, this.

tasuki 9y ago
> Morals one makes for themselves ("personal moral code") are not morals proper. So what _are_ "morals proper"?
rnentjes 9y ago
Actually I would argue that the only "morals proper" are those that one makes for themselves. Externally enforced behavior is not "morals".
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Externally enforced behavior is not "morals". That's a new definition then, because for millennia morals were derived from exactly those "externally enforced behaviours": from religion, society, culture, etc. The personal codes someones makes on their own can be anything and everything ("shit on everybody to get rich" is a perfectly valid code that millions use). Nobody would call that "moral" though -- because precisely morals are those beyond the individual whims (though whether an individual follows them its their choice). Personal principles someone follows are only fit to be called morals if they follow an extended, external, moral code. Which might change over time, and be culture-specific, but it's not "whatever I say".
  - beagle3 9y ago
    As far as one can tell, social animals show something equivalent to morals in every experiment we can devise -- and in the vast majority of cases, it is not a learned trait (elephants being the best known counterexample in that their cultural norms and morals are indeed learned). We can't really experiment with humans, but the few experiments that have cleared ethical committees, it appears that babies as young as 6 months have a sense of equality and justice, see e.g. [0] [0] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/babies-understand-hero-actions http://www.wired.co.uk/article/babies-understand-hero-action...