7 ms·

"Decency and respect in general is a two-way street" No it isn't. Decency and respect is a way you choose to conduct yourself. I treat everyone with decency a

"Decency and respect in general is a two-way street" No it isn't. Decency and respect is a way you choose to conduct yourself. I treat everyone with decency and respect. I choose not to associate with people that are immoral or toxic, but I will treat them with decency and respect because I will not let someone else's conduct dictate how I act. If your boss is bad, resign as soon as possible with 2 weeks notice and wipe your hands of it.

adfm 8y ago
This is what is referred to as the Golden Rule. https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html It's an interesting hack on quid pro quo that I recommend to everyone.
- username223 8y ago
  Then you can upgrade to the Categorical Imperative: "do unto others as they have done to you" becomes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," which becomes "do what you would want all others to do." It's subtle, but important.
  - naniwaduni 8y ago
    It's a subtle change with great appeal to universalizing thinkers, but one which, as commonly formulated, makes many suggestions that seem intuitively wrong without adding a lot of qualifiers, and at that point you've just punted the task of formalizing ethics one level up.
    - username223 8y ago
      Can you elaborate? As far as I understand it, the difference between the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative is acting in ways that don't involve reciprocity. The former is a rule against stabbing other people; the latter is also a rule that people going around stabbing themselves would be a bad idea.
      - naniwaduni 8y ago
        While the categorical imperative is kind of okay at justifying abstract prohibitions, most concrete actions don't universalize very well in the presence of people who are not precisely you; just take a look at any "falsehoods programmers believe" list. Some of these are occasionally useful to. Even something as simple as "sit on toilets" is hard to naively universalize unconditionally, and once you've filled in the blanks you've done no less work than if you hadn't started from the categorical imperative in the first place. And then there's the "lying to a murderer"-type problem, where the apparent implication of the categorical imperative seems to be flat-out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_to_a_murderer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_t...
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  The golden rule is almost the opposite of quid pro quo ("you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours") A common statement of it is "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". It has equivalents across human history and cultures. It says nothing about the actions of others.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Except if you think about it for any length of time there is no way the Golden Rule either good, desirable or workable. There are some people who have preferences that you just don't like and they would do unto you in a way that they would want to be done unto but that you certainly do not. I'm convinced the subtext of this rule says something very different than the text of this rule...
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    I want others to treat me in a fashion that I like. In return I try to treat them in the fashion they like. This is the Golden rule.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
      Even that formulation still fails. You don't know everyones preference. You can't actually do it. I know what the text of it says. I just think the subtext says something much different. Or the whole thing is just plain wrong, but in an accidentally useful way.
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        You know a reasonable approximation of everyone's preference, and with a modicum of empathy and communication you should be able to suss out the areas where it might be unclear.
        james_s_tayler 8y ago
        That sounds good on a surface level analysis but closer inspection of how political correctness has changed over the last century suggests it's actually not at all as simple as you make it out to be. We're actually crap at pulling it off. If it requires communication then the formulation is actually closer to "treat others how they state they'd like to be treated". We're getting further and further away from the original formulation. Think of it another way... If you were a 19th century man, it's not likely you would have a cordial chat with a woman or a gay man, deploy empathy and come to 21st conclusions on how you should treat them. The change is hard fought and hard won. How we state we want to be treated is a matter of both public and private discourse and it's a long process for enough communication to happen for the baseline of what social norms should be to shift in a noticeable way.
masklinn 8y ago
You're confusing courtesy and decency, to say nothing of respect.
supercanuck 8y ago
>If your boss is bad, resign as soon as possible and wipe your hands of it. Look, I removed the 2 weeks notice and boom!, you are the person in the Article!
- slededit 8y ago
  The article is about leaving without resigning or doing anything. Even quitting with zero notice is better than what is being talked about here.
  - supercanuck 8y ago
    Is it though? Seems to me Employees are walking off jobs due to being treated like shit for so many years. We're complaining about someone who went from being a Lifeguard to a Pizza Delivery Driver. Let's not pretend that these are the types of jobs that need to be "resigned" from and that employers are treating these people with respect and dignity.
    - slededit 8y ago
      Walking off in a rage is still not ghosting. Unless you do it silently when your boss doesn’t see. I’ve had shitty jobs including a stint at Walmart. You may leave without notice but the vast majority of people had the decency to tell their manager they were out. People working crap jobs have self respect and common decency too.
      - supercanuck 8y ago
        > vast majority of people had the decency to tell their manager they were out The ghosting is sending a message to people who value money over people. That to me is the undercurrent theme of all this. That is why it is a trend. The companies are not "people" they are entities and the managers are simply lever pulling proxies for the company.
        slededit 8y ago
gwbas1c 8y ago
> If your boss is bad, resign as soon as possible with 2 weeks notice and wipe your hands of it 2 weeks is a guidelines, and there are a lot of exceptions for the guideline. To be quite honest, there are some jobs where I'd give more than 2 weeks, and there are other jobs where walking up to the boss and saying, "I quit" is completely appropriate. IMO, ghosting is (almost) never appropriate. I think the only exception are situations of personal safety or situations where contact with the employer would have legal consequences. In those cases, I'd get a lawyer involved ASAP to handle communication with my prior employer. But, getting back to quitting with less than 2 weeks notice. If a situation is truly miserable, but people are generally reasonable, (IE, no personal safety or legal issues,) I think it's best to explain the situation. I certainly would never expect a miserable subordinate to stay. I once quit a beer money job on short notice. There were a few things promised that weren't delivered, and a few expenses that weren't explained. I didn't feel guilty.
- Aloha 8y ago
  How much notice they get is often related to their fulfillment of the social contract, or literal implied work contract. Changing the terms after the fact, abrogates the agreement.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    This is a central point under debate, I suppose, but literally walking away with no notice is petty and petty people have a place in the world despite their pettiness - rarely because of it. I could, with time, construct a story about how a greedy person harnesses that greed as a motivator to do great works for a society. Same with selfishness. They aren't pretty, but they can sustain someone as they complete a large, complicated project. Pettiness, I can't do that. Maybe it is possible, but I've only ever seen pettiness as an ugly (and worse, unproductive!) trait. It isn't something that can sustain long-term action. Some bosses are worse than petty, so we're trawling the bottom of the trench of behavior here, but correct response for an employee is to show a little pride in their character and tell someone that they aren't coming back and wait a little bit. Going through life without being petty once is a tough but worthwhile goal, and if an employee wants to disrespect their boss being petty does not work. There are instances where no notice is appropriate, but they are pretty extreme.
FilterSweep 8y ago
When one party conducts themselves with decency, and the other doesn’t (employer), the decent one is ripe for being taken advantage of.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Instead of descending to their level, how about you take yourself out of the bad situation? This sort of grievance morality is just, "An eye for an eye, making the whole world blind."
  - watwut 8y ago
    When your focus is on removing yourself, you will eventually run from everywhere having limited options where to go. Also leave all the bullies targeting even weaker people. Or just become enabler, because not enabling became something bad.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Ghosting is running. Not only is it running, but it's degrading our collective life and common courtesy.
- delecti 8y ago
  You can be decent without being a doormat.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
watwut 8y ago
In general yes, but if ones definition of good behavior requires you to leave and have no other options for bad situations, then that definition is suspect - because it leaves people in truly bad situations powerless and often amounts to enabling. I definitely don't require people to be heroes and take action. But, if definition of good behavior turns such actions into something bad, then the definition is wrong.
skookumchuck 8y ago
A man and his son are walking down the street. The man tips his hat in greeting to a passing woman. The son asks "Why did you tip your hat to her? She's no lady!" The man replies "You're right she's no lady. But I am a gentleman."
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  Thank you.

adfm 8y ago

This is what is referred to as the Golden Rule. https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html It's an interesting hack on quid pro quo that I recommend to everyone.

username223 8y ago
Then you can upgrade to the Categorical Imperative: "do unto others as they have done to you" becomes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," which becomes "do what you would want all others to do." It's subtle, but important.
- naniwaduni 8y ago
  It's a subtle change with great appeal to universalizing thinkers, but one which, as commonly formulated, makes many suggestions that seem intuitively wrong without adding a lot of qualifiers, and at that point you've just punted the task of formalizing ethics one level up.
  - username223 8y ago
    Can you elaborate? As far as I understand it, the difference between the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative is acting in ways that don't involve reciprocity. The former is a rule against stabbing other people; the latter is also a rule that people going around stabbing themselves would be a bad idea.
    - naniwaduni 8y ago
      While the categorical imperative is kind of okay at justifying abstract prohibitions, most concrete actions don't universalize very well in the presence of people who are not precisely you; just take a look at any "falsehoods programmers believe" list. Some of these are occasionally useful to. Even something as simple as "sit on toilets" is hard to naively universalize unconditionally, and once you've filled in the blanks you've done no less work than if you hadn't started from the categorical imperative in the first place. And then there's the "lying to a murderer"-type problem, where the apparent implication of the categorical imperative seems to be flat-out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_to_a_murderer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_t...
throwaway5752 8y ago
The golden rule is almost the opposite of quid pro quo ("you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours") A common statement of it is "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". It has equivalents across human history and cultures. It says nothing about the actions of others.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
Except if you think about it for any length of time there is no way the Golden Rule either good, desirable or workable. There are some people who have preferences that you just don't like and they would do unto you in a way that they would want to be done unto but that you certainly do not. I'm convinced the subtext of this rule says something very different than the text of this rule...
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I want others to treat me in a fashion that I like. In return I try to treat them in the fashion they like. This is the Golden rule.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    Even that formulation still fails. You don't know everyones preference. You can't actually do it. I know what the text of it says. I just think the subtext says something much different. Or the whole thing is just plain wrong, but in an accidentally useful way.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      You know a reasonable approximation of everyone's preference, and with a modicum of empathy and communication you should be able to suss out the areas where it might be unclear.
      - james_s_tayler 8y ago
        That sounds good on a surface level analysis but closer inspection of how political correctness has changed over the last century suggests it's actually not at all as simple as you make it out to be. We're actually crap at pulling it off. If it requires communication then the formulation is actually closer to "treat others how they state they'd like to be treated". We're getting further and further away from the original formulation. Think of it another way... If you were a 19th century man, it's not likely you would have a cordial chat with a woman or a gay man, deploy empathy and come to 21st conclusions on how you should treat them. The change is hard fought and hard won. How we state we want to be treated is a matter of both public and private discourse and it's a long process for enough communication to happen for the baseline of what social norms should be to shift in a noticeable way.

masklinn 8y ago

You're confusing courtesy and decency, to say nothing of respect.

supercanuck 8y ago

>If your boss is bad, resign as soon as possible and wipe your hands of it. Look, I removed the 2 weeks notice and boom!, you are the person in the Article!

slededit 8y ago
The article is about leaving without resigning or doing anything. Even quitting with zero notice is better than what is being talked about here.
- supercanuck 8y ago
  Is it though? Seems to me Employees are walking off jobs due to being treated like shit for so many years. We're complaining about someone who went from being a Lifeguard to a Pizza Delivery Driver. Let's not pretend that these are the types of jobs that need to be "resigned" from and that employers are treating these people with respect and dignity.
  - slededit 8y ago
    Walking off in a rage is still not ghosting. Unless you do it silently when your boss doesn’t see. I’ve had shitty jobs including a stint at Walmart. You may leave without notice but the vast majority of people had the decency to tell their manager they were out. People working crap jobs have self respect and common decency too.
    - supercanuck 8y ago
      > vast majority of people had the decency to tell their manager they were out The ghosting is sending a message to people who value money over people. That to me is the undercurrent theme of all this. That is why it is a trend. The companies are not "people" they are entities and the managers are simply lever pulling proxies for the company.
      - slededit 8y ago

gwbas1c 8y ago

> If your boss is bad, resign as soon as possible with 2 weeks notice and wipe your hands of it 2 weeks is a guidelines, and there are a lot of exceptions for the guideline. To be quite honest, there are some jobs where I'd give more than 2 weeks, and there are other jobs where walking up to the boss and saying, "I quit" is completely appropriate. IMO, ghosting is (almost) never appropriate. I think the only exception are situations of personal safety or situations where contact with the employer would have legal consequences. In those cases, I'd get a lawyer involved ASAP to handle communication with my prior employer. But, getting back to quitting with less than 2 weeks notice. If a situation is truly miserable, but people are generally reasonable, (IE, no personal safety or legal issues,) I think it's best to explain the situation. I certainly would never expect a miserable subordinate to stay. I once quit a beer money job on short notice. There were a few things promised that weren't delivered, and a few expenses that weren't explained. I didn't feel guilty.

Aloha 8y ago
How much notice they get is often related to their fulfillment of the social contract, or literal implied work contract. Changing the terms after the fact, abrogates the agreement.
- roenxi 8y ago
  This is a central point under debate, I suppose, but literally walking away with no notice is petty and petty people have a place in the world despite their pettiness - rarely because of it. I could, with time, construct a story about how a greedy person harnesses that greed as a motivator to do great works for a society. Same with selfishness. They aren't pretty, but they can sustain someone as they complete a large, complicated project. Pettiness, I can't do that. Maybe it is possible, but I've only ever seen pettiness as an ugly (and worse, unproductive!) trait. It isn't something that can sustain long-term action. Some bosses are worse than petty, so we're trawling the bottom of the trench of behavior here, but correct response for an employee is to show a little pride in their character and tell someone that they aren't coming back and wait a little bit. Going through life without being petty once is a tough but worthwhile goal, and if an employee wants to disrespect their boss being petty does not work. There are instances where no notice is appropriate, but they are pretty extreme.

FilterSweep 8y ago

When one party conducts themselves with decency, and the other doesn’t (employer), the decent one is ripe for being taken advantage of.

stcredzero 8y ago
Instead of descending to their level, how about you take yourself out of the bad situation? This sort of grievance morality is just, "An eye for an eye, making the whole world blind."
- watwut 8y ago
  When your focus is on removing yourself, you will eventually run from everywhere having limited options where to go. Also leave all the bullies targeting even weaker people. Or just become enabler, because not enabling became something bad.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Ghosting is running. Not only is it running, but it's degrading our collective life and common courtesy.
delecti 8y ago
You can be decent without being a doormat.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

watwut 8y ago

In general yes, but if ones definition of good behavior requires you to leave and have no other options for bad situations, then that definition is suspect - because it leaves people in truly bad situations powerless and often amounts to enabling. I definitely don't require people to be heroes and take action. But, if definition of good behavior turns such actions into something bad, then the definition is wrong.

skookumchuck 8y ago

A man and his son are walking down the street. The man tips his hat in greeting to a passing woman. The son asks "Why did you tip your hat to her? She's no lady!" The man replies "You're right she's no lady. But I am a gentleman."

throwaway5752 8y ago
Thank you.