5 ms·

I believe regulation is an essential tool for society, but it is not the whole story- morality plays as large a part. Once the regulation is set, it can easily

I believe regulation is an essential tool for society, but it is not the whole story- morality plays as large a part. Once the regulation is set, it can easily be undermined. BPA was banned by regulation, so industry developed analogue chemicals with the same properties and began using them. Certain aspects of concrete & steel are regulated, so unethical effort goes into subverting the idea of the law while following the letter. Or they start sourcing the steel from outside the jurisdiction of the regulation (eg radioactive material is disposed of in China by mixing with steel made for export https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-growing-global-threat-of-radioactive-scrap-metal/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-growing-global...) Not trying to be disagreeable, it's just a thought that has been bothering me.

ethanbond 6y ago
But you’re agreeing. Variable morality is a problem. The solution is (imperfect as it often is, as BPA ex illustrates) effective regulation. Effective regulation is synonymous with “making individual moral differences irrelevant.”
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > Effective regulation is synonymous with “making individual moral differences irrelevant.” I think it's more illuminating to phrase the problem in terms of externalities. Things need to be set up to ensure that the profit motive cannot lead to the following thinking: Rather than spending $100m on doing the project to a high safety standard, I'll spend $70m, introducing a mere 1% chance of catastrophic failure and hundreds of deaths. 1% is of course far too high a probability, especially if this line of thinking is being followed in hundreds of different projects, but the odds may look fine to the manager. Without regulation, companies can be incentivised to take corner-cutting risks where they profit by the upside, and we all bear risk-of-death on the downside (failing aircraft, collapsing buildings, etc). With regulation, companies are required to meet a certain bar. Reputational harm can also incentivise companies to invest in safety, but it's not enough; regulation is needed.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
You comment reminds me of a quip floating around the maintenance side of commercial aviation that's along the lines of "this industry is full of bean counters trying to find dumb corners to cut to save a penny because it's illegal to cut all the smart ones".
HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
I used to work in a very process-heavy industry: control software for Medical Devices. People would ask about the benefits of following a rigorous process and my answer was always the same: Process sets a minimum standard, but unless people believe in producing a quality product, that minimum is all you'll ever get.
- brnt 6y ago
  Oof, that hit close to home. In fact, even when people want to create a quality product, management will find someone who'll just do the minimum faster and for less.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
    Which is exactly why any Quality initiative has to be supported by management, or it's a waste of time.
addicted 6y ago
In capitalist societies any morality driven endeavor will very quickly be driven to the ground by its amoral competitor. And in public organizations the moral are quickly driven out because they threaten the amoral. Also, of course, there are cases where regulation fails, and it’s never 100% successful. But the situations you mention are where people refused to adjust regulations as needed. I’m curious to see examples where morality has prevented undesirable behavior on a large scale.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
vmh1928 6y ago
The history of the world tells us that ethics is a very weak control. In particular where profit is concerned. Capitalists have proven time and time again that they will pass whatever costs they can to others, the users of their product, the public or the workers. No doubt the many of the managers at 3M(just one example of zillions,) went to some sort religious institution and if you asked them they'd profess to be moral people. Zero dependence should be made on morality as a regulator.
- vmh1928 6y ago
  Let me add, perhaps there's a moral basis behind the regulations ("don't have machinery that chops worker arms off") but morality should have zero role to play as an implicit or explicit part of the regulation. "we don't have to include in the regulation "install shields on equipment to prevent harm to workers" because we expect the factory owners to take the necessary steps, based on their being moral people, to prevent it." Expecting good behavior based on the expectation of morality should never be part of any regulation.
Spooky23 6y ago
Morality is out the window once someone's mortgage is in the mix.
6AA4FD 6y ago
I strongly agree. For laws to work effectively, there needs to be a critical mass of support for them in every group involved.

ethanbond 6y ago

But you’re agreeing. Variable morality is a problem. The solution is (imperfect as it often is, as BPA ex illustrates) effective regulation. Effective regulation is synonymous with “making individual moral differences irrelevant.”

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> Effective regulation is synonymous with “making individual moral differences irrelevant.” I think it's more illuminating to phrase the problem in terms of externalities. Things need to be set up to ensure that the profit motive cannot lead to the following thinking: Rather than spending $100m on doing the project to a high safety standard, I'll spend $70m, introducing a mere 1% chance of catastrophic failure and hundreds of deaths. 1% is of course far too high a probability, especially if this line of thinking is being followed in hundreds of different projects, but the odds may look fine to the manager. Without regulation, companies can be incentivised to take corner-cutting risks where they profit by the upside, and we all bear risk-of-death on the downside (failing aircraft, collapsing buildings, etc). With regulation, companies are required to meet a certain bar. Reputational harm can also incentivise companies to invest in safety, but it's not enough; regulation is needed.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

You comment reminds me of a quip floating around the maintenance side of commercial aviation that's along the lines of "this industry is full of bean counters trying to find dumb corners to cut to save a penny because it's illegal to cut all the smart ones".

HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago

I used to work in a very process-heavy industry: control software for Medical Devices. People would ask about the benefits of following a rigorous process and my answer was always the same: Process sets a minimum standard, but unless people believe in producing a quality product, that minimum is all you'll ever get.

brnt 6y ago
Oof, that hit close to home. In fact, even when people want to create a quality product, management will find someone who'll just do the minimum faster and for less.
- HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
  Which is exactly why any Quality initiative has to be supported by management, or it's a waste of time.

addicted 6y ago

In capitalist societies any morality driven endeavor will very quickly be driven to the ground by its amoral competitor. And in public organizations the moral are quickly driven out because they threaten the amoral. Also, of course, there are cases where regulation fails, and it’s never 100% successful. But the situations you mention are where people refused to adjust regulations as needed. I’m curious to see examples where morality has prevented undesirable behavior on a large scale.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

vmh1928 6y ago

The history of the world tells us that ethics is a very weak control. In particular where profit is concerned. Capitalists have proven time and time again that they will pass whatever costs they can to others, the users of their product, the public or the workers. No doubt the many of the managers at 3M(just one example of zillions,) went to some sort religious institution and if you asked them they'd profess to be moral people. Zero dependence should be made on morality as a regulator.

vmh1928 6y ago
Let me add, perhaps there's a moral basis behind the regulations ("don't have machinery that chops worker arms off") but morality should have zero role to play as an implicit or explicit part of the regulation. "we don't have to include in the regulation "install shields on equipment to prevent harm to workers" because we expect the factory owners to take the necessary steps, based on their being moral people, to prevent it." Expecting good behavior based on the expectation of morality should never be part of any regulation.

Spooky23 6y ago

Morality is out the window once someone's mortgage is in the mix.

6AA4FD 6y ago

I strongly agree. For laws to work effectively, there needs to be a critical mass of support for them in every group involved.