36 ms·

Doing Good Makes It Easier to Be Bad

78 points by dnetesn 8y ago

hannob 8y ago
It should be noted that some questions have been raised about the underlying theory of "moral licensing" and there have been replication failures of key studies: https://psyarxiv.com/wynjb/ https://psyarxiv.com/wynjb/ The article imho does a poor job of evaluating how reliable the research that it quotes is.
- adolph 8y ago
  I first learned of the concept from Malcom Gladwell's podcast: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/01-the-lady-vanishes/ http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/01-the-lady-vanishes/
kokokokoko 8y ago
That is a massive leap of faith to believe that a person that works for a large international non-profit is someone who automatically behaves justly and morally. It is often a prestigious and above average paying position. There are certainly people who go into non-profit work for all the right reasons. But there are plenty that do not.
- duxup 8y ago
  It does seem to be a common belief though. I recall someone hired at Baylor University as a part of dealing with sexual assault investigations (before the big scandal) believed it would be a good job because ... they thought there would fewer such problems at a Christian university. I was bit shocked that someone tasked with investigations like this would even think that (wondered about qualifications). In the end, people are people. No job or role really makes them any more or less anything. It's about who they are, and their choices, not the job, title, or etc.
- drieddust 8y ago
  > That is a massive leap of faith to believe that a person that works for a large international non-profit is someone who automatically behaves justly and morally. In some circles its trendy to work for non profits and sometimes even benefits are much better than working for a regular organization where $$ return of investments are monitored closely. It's basically do good porn for some.
  - PaulHoule 8y ago
    see https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18203911/davos-rutger-bregman-historian-taxes-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18203911/davos-...
- matt4077 8y ago
  NGO jobs are not better paid than equivalent jobs in industry. I have plenty of friends in those jobs, and each one of them could easily triple their salary by, for example, going to McKinsey instead. To give more than anecdotes: it’s self-evident that more prestigious work can afford to pay less than competitors that are boring and get you spit at by your friends.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Once you go up the chain they make very good money. Just look at the houses of non-profit execs in Northern VA. They are huge.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      It depends a lot on the NGO. Some cap executive compensation at $100K or so. But others don't.
    - sincerely 8y ago
      Non-profit execs make good money (by virtue of being execs), but certainly not more than they could be making in industry.
- coderintherye 8y ago
  >It is often a prestigious and above average paying position Incorrect. Furthermore, the salaries are often public, so this is provable. Look up our 990 if you don't believe me. You can also review via GuideStar[0] or Foundation Center[1]. I work with a lot of fellow non-profits, on average our positions pay about 80% of market. Perhaps you are only looking at CEO pay? On average, that is also below market, but there are some outliers which I'd have to guess you are basing your incorrect assertion on. [0] https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx [1] https://foundationcenter.org/ https://foundationcenter.org/
  - kokokokoko 8y ago
    By "above average" I meant it was above the median income as opposed to above average for the position. I should have made that language a bit clearer. From there I would say that the status and prestige of working at a large and powerful NGO can make up for the difference in pay one might make elsewhere. There are obviously many people who go into non-profit work for purely altruistic reasons. I only meant to state that there are plenty of people who do not. Therefore using the position as a signal of the quality of a person's character is not valid.
    - mLuby 8y ago
      Ehhh, the signal can be pretty valid even if it's not so in 100% of cases. And I imagine that it's less correct at the top: rank and file NGO employees are likely to have made significant sacrifices in terms of pay or lifestyle to support their org's mission, but I don't know for certain that applies to the C-suite equivalent at the top.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      Can’t you just admit you were wrong, instead of moving the goalpost to some (also wrong) median vs mode argument, and then repeating your other impossible-to-disprove opinion on NGO worker’s character flaws?
      - kokokokoko 8y ago
- wazoox 8y ago
  Absolutely anecdata: all of the NGO workers I've met were "spoiled rich youngsters" wanting to get meaning in their lives. Then most NGOs seem do more harm than good IMO, particularly the bigger the badder (local support associations and organisations are almost always fine OTOH).
  - byron_fast 8y ago
    This also describes most "terrorist leaders". Being born rich distorts your worldview.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    When I interviewed for my first NGO job, I was warned that most staff had trust fund income. I didn't. And eventually got tired of being poor.
- HappyDreamer 8y ago
  > plenty that do not [join for the right reasons] Some people (men) become aid workers so the can use their power, as aid workers, to rape refugee women and children. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43206297 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43206297 "Syria conflict: Women 'sexually exploited in return for aid'" -- the United Nations and other charities, hire them. Why don't they just hire women instead, to distribute the food, please.
Brigadirk 8y ago
This is called the moral credential efffect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing
oldgun 8y ago
South Park gets it best: https://imgflip.com/i/2t3msg https://imgflip.com/i/2t3msg From the episode of "Canada on Strike": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_h_HBzZnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_h_HBzZnc
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rifung 8y ago
> The all-male charity, the President’s Club, which raised money for causes including children’s hospitals through high-valued auctions, was forced to close after the Financial Times uncovered sexual assault and misogyny at its annual dinner; executives of Oxfam, a poverty eradication charity, visited prostitutes while delivering aid in earthquake-stricken Haiti, and were allowed to slink off to other charities, rather than being castigated for their actions; and ex-Save the Children executives Brendan Cox and Justin Forsyth stepped down from their roles at other charities, after allegations of sexual harassment and bullying toward junior female colleagues resurfaced. Maybe I just lack the context but I don't really understand how sexual harassment is in the same vein as visiting prostitutes. What is morally wrong about seeing prostitutes? Did it somehow interfere with their jobs? Or were they using charity funds?
- grawprog 8y ago
  >executives of Oxfam, a poverty eradication charity, visited prostitutes while delivering aid in earthquake-stricken Haiti, Hmmm to me it seems like a pretty shitty thing to do. You're an executive at a charity there helping people after a natural disaster....paying one of those people for sex seems just ya know...like a bit of a shitty thing to do. Even if it was their job. I think it's more the context and timing of the situation that's the problem. Again...these are executives in a charity...in a disaster stricken country....supposedly there to help out...having sex with local prostitutes. I'm sure if it was during their own free time, possibly while not in a disaster stricken place it would likely be less of a big deal. Especially because as an executive at a charity devoted to ending poverty you should probably be trying to help these women find other means to live rather than encouraging them to sell themselves...especially right after a natural disaster. Just saying...seems real shitty to me. They're basically taking advantage of people in a desperate situation despite supposedly being there to help.
  - meruru 8y ago
    >paying one of those people for sex seems just ya know...like a bit of a shitty thing to do. Why? There's nothing wrong with sex work, it's just a job. Would it be shitty to pay them to wash your car or whatever?
elicash 8y ago
It's certainly true that when I work out, my default response is that I should "reward" myself with bad food. Of course, it's important to ignore that impulse.
gerash 8y ago
Here's a relevant social experiment: https://youtu.be/yZlOw3rsPBM https://youtu.be/yZlOw3rsPBM

78 points by dnetesn 8y ago

It should be noted that some questions have been raised about the underlying theory of "moral licensing" and there have been replication failures of key studies: https://psyarxiv.com/wynjb/ https://psyarxiv.com/wynjb/ The article imho does a poor job of evaluating how reliable the research that it quotes is.

adolph 8y ago
I first learned of the concept from Malcom Gladwell's podcast: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/01-the-lady-vanishes/ http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/01-the-lady-vanishes/

kokokokoko 8y ago

That is a massive leap of faith to believe that a person that works for a large international non-profit is someone who automatically behaves justly and morally. It is often a prestigious and above average paying position. There are certainly people who go into non-profit work for all the right reasons. But there are plenty that do not.

duxup 8y ago
It does seem to be a common belief though. I recall someone hired at Baylor University as a part of dealing with sexual assault investigations (before the big scandal) believed it would be a good job because ... they thought there would fewer such problems at a Christian university. I was bit shocked that someone tasked with investigations like this would even think that (wondered about qualifications). In the end, people are people. No job or role really makes them any more or less anything. It's about who they are, and their choices, not the job, title, or etc.
drieddust 8y ago
> That is a massive leap of faith to believe that a person that works for a large international non-profit is someone who automatically behaves justly and morally. In some circles its trendy to work for non profits and sometimes even benefits are much better than working for a regular organization where $$ return of investments are monitored closely. It's basically do good porn for some.
- PaulHoule 8y ago
  see https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18203911/davos-rutger-bregman-historian-taxes-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18203911/davos-...
matt4077 8y ago
NGO jobs are not better paid than equivalent jobs in industry. I have plenty of friends in those jobs, and each one of them could easily triple their salary by, for example, going to McKinsey instead. To give more than anecdotes: it’s self-evident that more prestigious work can afford to pay less than competitors that are boring and get you spit at by your friends.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Once you go up the chain they make very good money. Just look at the houses of non-profit execs in Northern VA. They are huge.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    It depends a lot on the NGO. Some cap executive compensation at $100K or so. But others don't.
  - sincerely 8y ago
    Non-profit execs make good money (by virtue of being execs), but certainly not more than they could be making in industry.
coderintherye 8y ago
>It is often a prestigious and above average paying position Incorrect. Furthermore, the salaries are often public, so this is provable. Look up our 990 if you don't believe me. You can also review via GuideStar[0] or Foundation Center[1]. I work with a lot of fellow non-profits, on average our positions pay about 80% of market. Perhaps you are only looking at CEO pay? On average, that is also below market, but there are some outliers which I'd have to guess you are basing your incorrect assertion on. [0] https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx [1] https://foundationcenter.org/ https://foundationcenter.org/
- kokokokoko 8y ago
  By "above average" I meant it was above the median income as opposed to above average for the position. I should have made that language a bit clearer. From there I would say that the status and prestige of working at a large and powerful NGO can make up for the difference in pay one might make elsewhere. There are obviously many people who go into non-profit work for purely altruistic reasons. I only meant to state that there are plenty of people who do not. Therefore using the position as a signal of the quality of a person's character is not valid.
  - mLuby 8y ago
    Ehhh, the signal can be pretty valid even if it's not so in 100% of cases. And I imagine that it's less correct at the top: rank and file NGO employees are likely to have made significant sacrifices in terms of pay or lifestyle to support their org's mission, but I don't know for certain that applies to the C-suite equivalent at the top.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Can’t you just admit you were wrong, instead of moving the goalpost to some (also wrong) median vs mode argument, and then repeating your other impossible-to-disprove opinion on NGO worker’s character flaws?
    - kokokokoko 8y ago
wazoox 8y ago
Absolutely anecdata: all of the NGO workers I've met were "spoiled rich youngsters" wanting to get meaning in their lives. Then most NGOs seem do more harm than good IMO, particularly the bigger the badder (local support associations and organisations are almost always fine OTOH).
- byron_fast 8y ago
  This also describes most "terrorist leaders". Being born rich distorts your worldview.
- mirimir 8y ago
  When I interviewed for my first NGO job, I was warned that most staff had trust fund income. I didn't. And eventually got tired of being poor.
HappyDreamer 8y ago
> plenty that do not [join for the right reasons] Some people (men) become aid workers so the can use their power, as aid workers, to rape refugee women and children. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43206297 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43206297 "Syria conflict: Women 'sexually exploited in return for aid'" -- the United Nations and other charities, hire them. Why don't they just hire women instead, to distribute the food, please.

Brigadirk 8y ago

This is called the moral credential efffect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing

oldgun 8y ago

South Park gets it best: https://imgflip.com/i/2t3msg https://imgflip.com/i/2t3msg From the episode of "Canada on Strike": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_h_HBzZnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_h_HBzZnc

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rifung 8y ago

> The all-male charity, the President’s Club, which raised money for causes including children’s hospitals through high-valued auctions, was forced to close after the Financial Times uncovered sexual assault and misogyny at its annual dinner; executives of Oxfam, a poverty eradication charity, visited prostitutes while delivering aid in earthquake-stricken Haiti, and were allowed to slink off to other charities, rather than being castigated for their actions; and ex-Save the Children executives Brendan Cox and Justin Forsyth stepped down from their roles at other charities, after allegations of sexual harassment and bullying toward junior female colleagues resurfaced. Maybe I just lack the context but I don't really understand how sexual harassment is in the same vein as visiting prostitutes. What is morally wrong about seeing prostitutes? Did it somehow interfere with their jobs? Or were they using charity funds?

grawprog 8y ago
>executives of Oxfam, a poverty eradication charity, visited prostitutes while delivering aid in earthquake-stricken Haiti, Hmmm to me it seems like a pretty shitty thing to do. You're an executive at a charity there helping people after a natural disaster....paying one of those people for sex seems just ya know...like a bit of a shitty thing to do. Even if it was their job. I think it's more the context and timing of the situation that's the problem. Again...these are executives in a charity...in a disaster stricken country....supposedly there to help out...having sex with local prostitutes. I'm sure if it was during their own free time, possibly while not in a disaster stricken place it would likely be less of a big deal. Especially because as an executive at a charity devoted to ending poverty you should probably be trying to help these women find other means to live rather than encouraging them to sell themselves...especially right after a natural disaster. Just saying...seems real shitty to me. They're basically taking advantage of people in a desperate situation despite supposedly being there to help.
- meruru 8y ago
  >paying one of those people for sex seems just ya know...like a bit of a shitty thing to do. Why? There's nothing wrong with sex work, it's just a job. Would it be shitty to pay them to wash your car or whatever?

elicash 8y ago

It's certainly true that when I work out, my default response is that I should "reward" myself with bad food. Of course, it's important to ignore that impulse.

gerash 8y ago

Here's a relevant social experiment: https://youtu.be/yZlOw3rsPBM https://youtu.be/yZlOw3rsPBM