5 ms·

Epstein absolutely should've been locked away in 2008. I think it's more of a failure of our justice system than the Media Lab. I don't think the Media Lab did

Epstein absolutely should've been locked away in 2008. I think it's more of a failure of our justice system than the Media Lab. I don't think the Media Lab did anything to assist Epstein in any way except enabling him to say he donated money to them. I hope the Media Lab took his money out of necessity rather than convenience but I don't know. I wish we lived in a world where all of Epstein's assets were seized and allocated to victims (both specific and general), educational institutions and whatever else seemed appropriate. I wish the Media Lab took Epstein's money in this way. Honestly, it's really a philosophical question. It's the classic debate between consequentialism and deontology. I'd argue that the consequences of taking his money were positive. I'd assume you'd say the action is inherently immoral. We could go back and forth, talking about the trolly problem among many other contrived examples. Tt's a tricky subject. There's a lot of these situations out there like this Nazi anatomy book we still use: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861. Ultimately, I think we could agree that there are worse people out there, deserving grave punishment, involved with Epstein. I'd rather see this energy be prioritized to identifying and convicting the worst people first. After, I think debating the Media Lab's funding less than 0.3% of its budget morally condemns it.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
There's a consequentialist argument to refusing the money, too: you're helping Epstein launder his reputation. By accepting his money and continuing to work with him, you're basically telling Epstein that he's free to continue raping children — that as long as he can wriggle out of the legal stuff, he won't suffer any real professional or social consequences. And instead of helping to deter other would-be Epsteins, you're sending them a message that no matter how many children they rape, they'll still be greeted warmly.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  Absolutely a good point. I'd say practically, the Media Lab didn't change much in this regard but it's impossible to know the full extent. I do think you hit a certain line with donations. Many of the charities and hospitals he also donated to probably don't have the luxury of deciding who their money comes from. It's a tricky situation but I think you make a solid point.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  But Epstein didn't make his money by investing in MIT. He made is money being a pimp. You think he'd stop pimping if universities stopped taking his donations?
  - shademaan 7y ago
    To me, the direction of the causal arrow is unclear. Was he able to throw money at MIT (and fulfill his fantasy of scientific/academic relevance) because he was a pimp, or did his involvement with these universities allow him to get closer to powerful people whom he'd manipulate with the offer of sex from young women? I agree that it's hard to definitely say because we're still unsure how exactly Epstein made his money.
glangdale 7y ago
We could go back and forth, but we're not going to, because I'm not a half-educated Hacker News sophomore. It's not a "philosophical problem". It was wrong to take Epstein's money. It was straight-up unethical to take money from a convicted pedophile. Taking money from people like this is always an exchange. In this case what continuing to accept Epstein's money did was legitimize him, plain and simple. That was the fucking consequence of taking his money. It's not that complicated unless you're trying to make it that complicated to feel better about the Media Lab, which is stupid, pretentious and wrong. It's not a trolley problem. It's not analogous to Nazi medical studies. And no amount of half-baked philosophical fumblings can paper over how fucking unethical it was to take the money of someone like Epstein. You talk a pretty line about how all sorts of other things should be happening in the world that are somehow "higher priority". But we're talking about the Media Lab's behavior here, not a hypothetical restructuring of society to abolish child predation. In fact, the Media Lab's moral imbecility and corruption here runs directly against such a restructuring, as do your specious arguments. You, and they, are making the world a worse place. What you're saying is that as long as someone can happen along and drop phrases like "classic debate between consequentialism and deontology" the issue of collecting cash from rich pedophiles can be rendered "complex" and "philosophical" so you might as well get while the getting's good. Everyone involved with the decision should resign and the money should be put in a victim's fund, not some self-congratulatory "look at the Media Lab Doing Good" research project.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  It's alright if we disagree. I enjoy having the conversation. I'd ask you to avoid the name-calling though. It really doesn't help you or your argument. I honestly think we live in completely different worlds. I simply don't understand the base of your moral absolutism. I really believe that the work that comes out of the Media Lab benefits society in a unique way not driven by profit motive. The people that work and study there sacrifice a lot of money to be there. I'd suggest you actually learn about the Media Lab first. https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=group https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=group or https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=project https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=project . They take on deep technical work to often help the most disadvantaged. The first project listed is: "Transformative Leadership in Indigenous Communities". I'd also ask you to look up Hugh Herr, an absolute visionary in prosthetics. They also work on interesting technical problems in general. The only question here is "Can you take money from an evil person to do good things?" You can argue about how the Media Lab uses money but that's really our disagreement. You say no and I lean yes in this case. I truly wish the world was as black and white as you make it seem. But I believe we live in a nuanced, complicated world. Decisions are hard. There's not always a totally right answer. Should Mount Sinai (a hospital) have rejected his money? They didn't turn his money down. Does it make you a moral imbecile to take money to literally save lives? I do agree though that it would be nice of the Media Lab to donate the money to a charity specifically focused on preventing child sexual abuse and helping its victims. That's what Mount Sinai did and I agree the Media Lab should do the same. It still doesn't change that fact that both of these organizations took his money. Mount Sinai is probably only changing course now due to the optics.
siruncledrew 7y ago
Do places like Media Lab actually know (and really know well) the people they take donations from? This is an actual question, not me trying to be facetious. We can trace all these things back in retrospect now, but it's a different situation than accepting money from someone in the moment without knowing what will happen to them in the future. Who knows what kind of person someone could turn into over time. For example, some world leader could donate a bunch of money to education at MIT and then commit genocide 10 years down the line. What happens then at the 10 years when the money is spent already?
- solveit 7y ago
  The argument is that his 2008 conviction should have been enough to make the Media Lab reject his contributions.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

There's a consequentialist argument to refusing the money, too: you're helping Epstein launder his reputation. By accepting his money and continuing to work with him, you're basically telling Epstein that he's free to continue raping children — that as long as he can wriggle out of the legal stuff, he won't suffer any real professional or social consequences. And instead of helping to deter other would-be Epsteins, you're sending them a message that no matter how many children they rape, they'll still be greeted warmly.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
Absolutely a good point. I'd say practically, the Media Lab didn't change much in this regard but it's impossible to know the full extent. I do think you hit a certain line with donations. Many of the charities and hospitals he also donated to probably don't have the luxury of deciding who their money comes from. It's a tricky situation but I think you make a solid point.
lonelappde 7y ago
But Epstein didn't make his money by investing in MIT. He made is money being a pimp. You think he'd stop pimping if universities stopped taking his donations?
- shademaan 7y ago
  To me, the direction of the causal arrow is unclear. Was he able to throw money at MIT (and fulfill his fantasy of scientific/academic relevance) because he was a pimp, or did his involvement with these universities allow him to get closer to powerful people whom he'd manipulate with the offer of sex from young women? I agree that it's hard to definitely say because we're still unsure how exactly Epstein made his money.

glangdale 7y ago

We could go back and forth, but we're not going to, because I'm not a half-educated Hacker News sophomore. It's not a "philosophical problem". It was wrong to take Epstein's money. It was straight-up unethical to take money from a convicted pedophile. Taking money from people like this is always an exchange. In this case what continuing to accept Epstein's money did was legitimize him, plain and simple. That was the fucking consequence of taking his money. It's not that complicated unless you're trying to make it that complicated to feel better about the Media Lab, which is stupid, pretentious and wrong. It's not a trolley problem. It's not analogous to Nazi medical studies. And no amount of half-baked philosophical fumblings can paper over how fucking unethical it was to take the money of someone like Epstein. You talk a pretty line about how all sorts of other things should be happening in the world that are somehow "higher priority". But we're talking about the Media Lab's behavior here, not a hypothetical restructuring of society to abolish child predation. In fact, the Media Lab's moral imbecility and corruption here runs directly against such a restructuring, as do your specious arguments. You, and they, are making the world a worse place. What you're saying is that as long as someone can happen along and drop phrases like "classic debate between consequentialism and deontology" the issue of collecting cash from rich pedophiles can be rendered "complex" and "philosophical" so you might as well get while the getting's good. Everyone involved with the decision should resign and the money should be put in a victim's fund, not some self-congratulatory "look at the Media Lab Doing Good" research project.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
It's alright if we disagree. I enjoy having the conversation. I'd ask you to avoid the name-calling though. It really doesn't help you or your argument. I honestly think we live in completely different worlds. I simply don't understand the base of your moral absolutism. I really believe that the work that comes out of the Media Lab benefits society in a unique way not driven by profit motive. The people that work and study there sacrifice a lot of money to be there. I'd suggest you actually learn about the Media Lab first. https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=group https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=group or https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=project https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=project . They take on deep technical work to often help the most disadvantaged. The first project listed is: "Transformative Leadership in Indigenous Communities". I'd also ask you to look up Hugh Herr, an absolute visionary in prosthetics. They also work on interesting technical problems in general. The only question here is "Can you take money from an evil person to do good things?" You can argue about how the Media Lab uses money but that's really our disagreement. You say no and I lean yes in this case. I truly wish the world was as black and white as you make it seem. But I believe we live in a nuanced, complicated world. Decisions are hard. There's not always a totally right answer. Should Mount Sinai (a hospital) have rejected his money? They didn't turn his money down. Does it make you a moral imbecile to take money to literally save lives? I do agree though that it would be nice of the Media Lab to donate the money to a charity specifically focused on preventing child sexual abuse and helping its victims. That's what Mount Sinai did and I agree the Media Lab should do the same. It still doesn't change that fact that both of these organizations took his money. Mount Sinai is probably only changing course now due to the optics.

siruncledrew 7y ago

Do places like Media Lab actually know (and really know well) the people they take donations from? This is an actual question, not me trying to be facetious. We can trace all these things back in retrospect now, but it's a different situation than accepting money from someone in the moment without knowing what will happen to them in the future. Who knows what kind of person someone could turn into over time. For example, some world leader could donate a bunch of money to education at MIT and then commit genocide 10 years down the line. What happens then at the 10 years when the money is spent already?

solveit 7y ago
The argument is that his 2008 conviction should have been enough to make the Media Lab reject his contributions.