10 ms·

Two wrongs don't make a right. Trying to not leave the world a worse place at the end of the day means not taking extra fruit at the self-checkout.

aey 7y ago
If you believe a corporation to be evil, then every possible act against them might be justifiable. This is a question of ethics. What is the right behavior to resist evil? For example, you could follow our own governments guide :) https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/simple-sabotage.html https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...
- koolba 7y ago
  So Amazon profiting from knockoffs means you can steal bananas from Kroger’s?
  - ratsmack 7y ago
    The problem seems to be a general lack of morals... regardless of some perceived justification.
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    If Amazon is not held accountable for fraudulent business practices, is it ethical to hold a shoplifter accountable? The answer, in my mind, is that it is not only not ethical to do so, but it is grossly unethical to do so.
    - brigandish 7y ago
      It's not fair but we shouldn't conflate the judgement of other's actions with choosing how we ourselves act. If Amazon is not held accountable for fraudulent business practices should I then steal? No. They've no relevance to each other, I am responsible for my actions.
      - SantalBlush 7y ago
        Applying a double standard between people is in itself unethical; that is my entire point. We can all choose to live by Amazon's rules, where maximizing profit without regard to ethics is acceptable, or we can live by our conventional sense of morality (which is what I want.) But insofar as we hold ordinary people to a different standard than Amazon, we are behaving unethically. The shoplifting is not central to my point.
        tomhoward 7y ago
        Your whole point hinges on the claim that Amazon routinely and deliberately acts fraudulently and is never held to account. But Amazon and companies like them are absolutely held accountable for legal breaches all the time. Here's just one recent example: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/ftc-settlement-amazon-yields-70-million-consumers-advice https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/... Companies are under constant scrutiny by various bodies and agents including regulators, consumer protection groups, media outlets, unions, review sites, consumer word of mouth - not to the simple market reality that if too many customers feel defrauded, they'll soon stop being customers. It's a huge leap to argue that since some counterfeit goods have been sold via their platform, blatant theft from them or other companies is therefore justifiable, particularly when you don't mention that those counterfeit goods were sold by third parties, and that Amazon has a formal process to refund customers who have been sold counterfeit goods and to bar such sellers from their platform: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/201165970 https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/201165970 We all learned as children that theft and dishonesty is wrong, because in families and societies alike, things quickly break down if it becomes widespread. It's pretty simple.
        1000units 7y ago
        Your example is comical. By my reading, Amazon stole (and was ordered to return) $70 million from Americans by offering their children fake playmoney for their real money. Where are the punitive damages? $70 million is piss to Amazon. Here's another comical example from recent: Facebook is fined $5B for privacy violations. Their stock goes up for the day.
    - rednixion 7y ago
      Sounds like you are just trying to justify whatever logic allows you to benefit. Amazon resold a fake charger so you should be allowed to steal that guy's bananas, got it.
      - 1000units 7y ago
        His argument is "I live in a low-trust society, in which large and powerful institutions are only out for themselves, carelessly fuck me, nobody cares, and so it is my moral obligation to protect my personal interests by whatever means possible." It's a very sour mindset, but it's also very common in third world countries and American inner-city ghettos where affairs are quite nasty.
    - praxulus 7y ago
      If a wealthy, influential person is not convicted of a murder they clearly committed, does that mean it's grossly unethical to hold anyone else accountable for murder?
      - 1000units 7y ago
        If that's the norm, yes. If the rich can kill my people with protection from the state, we have a moral obligation to war with them.
RHSeeger 7y ago
I think that phrase is used a little more freely than it should be. It is wrong to imprison people against their will; yet we do it because those people do/will do wrong things. Two wrongs don't make a right in that case either, but we feel the second wrong is justified because of the first.
- tjoff 7y ago
  It's not wrong to imprison people against their will. It's part of the societal contract. Not imprisoning someone when you should is, however, wrong.
  - benjaminbrodie 7y ago
    if, instead of saying "is, however, wrong" you say "is wrong, however" you can save a comma. Just some LFP offered in a kindly spirit.

aey 7y ago

If you believe a corporation to be evil, then every possible act against them might be justifiable. This is a question of ethics. What is the right behavior to resist evil? For example, you could follow our own governments guide :) https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/simple-sabotage.html https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...

koolba 7y ago
So Amazon profiting from knockoffs means you can steal bananas from Kroger’s?
- ratsmack 7y ago
  The problem seems to be a general lack of morals... regardless of some perceived justification.
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  If Amazon is not held accountable for fraudulent business practices, is it ethical to hold a shoplifter accountable? The answer, in my mind, is that it is not only not ethical to do so, but it is grossly unethical to do so.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    It's not fair but we shouldn't conflate the judgement of other's actions with choosing how we ourselves act. If Amazon is not held accountable for fraudulent business practices should I then steal? No. They've no relevance to each other, I am responsible for my actions.
    - SantalBlush 7y ago
      Applying a double standard between people is in itself unethical; that is my entire point. We can all choose to live by Amazon's rules, where maximizing profit without regard to ethics is acceptable, or we can live by our conventional sense of morality (which is what I want.) But insofar as we hold ordinary people to a different standard than Amazon, we are behaving unethically. The shoplifting is not central to my point.
      - tomhoward 7y ago
        Your whole point hinges on the claim that Amazon routinely and deliberately acts fraudulently and is never held to account. But Amazon and companies like them are absolutely held accountable for legal breaches all the time. Here's just one recent example: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/ftc-settlement-amazon-yields-70-million-consumers-advice https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/05/... Companies are under constant scrutiny by various bodies and agents including regulators, consumer protection groups, media outlets, unions, review sites, consumer word of mouth - not to the simple market reality that if too many customers feel defrauded, they'll soon stop being customers. It's a huge leap to argue that since some counterfeit goods have been sold via their platform, blatant theft from them or other companies is therefore justifiable, particularly when you don't mention that those counterfeit goods were sold by third parties, and that Amazon has a formal process to refund customers who have been sold counterfeit goods and to bar such sellers from their platform: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/201165970 https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/201165970 We all learned as children that theft and dishonesty is wrong, because in families and societies alike, things quickly break down if it becomes widespread. It's pretty simple.
        1000units 7y ago
        Your example is comical. By my reading, Amazon stole (and was ordered to return) $70 million from Americans by offering their children fake playmoney for their real money. Where are the punitive damages? $70 million is piss to Amazon. Here's another comical example from recent: Facebook is fined $5B for privacy violations. Their stock goes up for the day.
  - rednixion 7y ago
    Sounds like you are just trying to justify whatever logic allows you to benefit. Amazon resold a fake charger so you should be allowed to steal that guy's bananas, got it.
    - 1000units 7y ago
      His argument is "I live in a low-trust society, in which large and powerful institutions are only out for themselves, carelessly fuck me, nobody cares, and so it is my moral obligation to protect my personal interests by whatever means possible." It's a very sour mindset, but it's also very common in third world countries and American inner-city ghettos where affairs are quite nasty.
  - praxulus 7y ago
    If a wealthy, influential person is not convicted of a murder they clearly committed, does that mean it's grossly unethical to hold anyone else accountable for murder?
    - 1000units 7y ago
      If that's the norm, yes. If the rich can kill my people with protection from the state, we have a moral obligation to war with them.

RHSeeger 7y ago

I think that phrase is used a little more freely than it should be. It is wrong to imprison people against their will; yet we do it because those people do/will do wrong things. Two wrongs don't make a right in that case either, but we feel the second wrong is justified because of the first.

tjoff 7y ago
It's not wrong to imprison people against their will. It's part of the societal contract. Not imprisoning someone when you should is, however, wrong.
- benjaminbrodie 7y ago
  if, instead of saying "is, however, wrong" you say "is wrong, however" you can save a comma. Just some LFP offered in a kindly spirit.