3 ms·
A question I've been pondering since the Martin Shkreli verdict, is fraud OK if the deceived parties still profit?
by bearcobra 9y ago
A question I've been pondering since the Martin Shkreli verdict, is fraud OK if the deceived parties still profit?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- danielam 9y agoA consequentialist might argue that it is, but then, consequentialists are wrong.
- EthanHeilman 9y agoGiven human nature, widespread belief in consequentialism as an ethical system would likely result is very bad consequences. So from the position that consequentialism is correct it is probably unethical to advocate as a correct viewpoint.
- shallot_router 9y agoWhat if (purely hypothically) all consequentialists could agree on the same set of standards for what constitutes positive and negative utility?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- EthanHeilman 9y agoHow do you think this purely hypothetical conspiracy of consequentialists would go about convincing people to follow that set of standards? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie#Plato.27s_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie#Plato.27s_Republic
- sah2ed 9y agoFraud is never OK. The end does not justify the means.
- angersock 9y agoWhat a small-minded view. Our entire runs on fraud of one degree or another--sometimes it's just more than people are willing to bear.
- sah2ed 9y agoYou are joking right? The question about fraud was in the context of the misappropriation of capital from investors for a purpose different from what was initially agreed to, and not as a general catch-all term for posturing or affectation either by politicians or the general populace.
- angersock 9y agoHell, you could make the same argument about a company jumping into a different product line with capital intended for a particular buildout. Your blanket statement "this is never is justified" was my primary objection.
- shallot_router 9y agoYes. You can't take a bunch of money from investors and then lie to them and tell them their money's doing great when most of it's actually gone, even if you do later manage to hit it big and pay them back. Imagine the kind of precedent that would set if this weren't considered fraud. "Temporary Ponzi schemes" would spring up everywhere. Maybe it changes the charges and the sentencing, if there is no indication that the person sought to personally profit or steal from the investors, but lying is lying.