5 ms·

Your argument is logically sound but provably false. Humans are known to compromise their ethics for relatively small amounts of money. For example, Martha Stew

Your argument is logically sound but provably false. Humans are known to compromise their ethics for relatively small amounts of money. For example, Martha Stewart was a billionaire when she engaged in insider trading and then lied about it to the FBI, resulting in her going to federal prison--all to avoid a measly $45,000 loss! The article makes clear that Epstein was granted physical access to facilities, the title of "visiting fellow at Harvard" in areas of study in which he had no credentials, and getting world-renowned researchers to validate his crackpot theories of racial eugenics due to his wealth. I mean, you are being reasonable: $10 million in funding is peanuts to Harvard, which has an endowment of almost US $41 billion. But apparently Harvard is willing to lease our their credibility for such "a tiny bit" of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_case_and_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Stock_trading_c... https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+endowment&oq=harvard+endowment https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+endowment&oq=harvard...

alexryan 6y ago
if "Humans are known to compromise their ethics for relatively small amounts of money", how does transferring the ability to choose how money is spent from "humans who have money" to "humans who do not" solve the ethics problem?
s1artibartfast 6y ago
>getting world-renowned researchers to validate his crackpot theories of racial eugenics due to his wealth. Do you have more information on this? Is there evidence that funding recipients Martin Nowak and George Church actually had their area of study directed by Epstein, or that the science was fundamentally flawed. On a conceptual level, there is no reason that evil people cant use dirty money to fund good academics researchers that they happen to find interesting.
- stainforth 6y ago
  Yes, yes there is. Corrupt people should not be able to buy legitimacy.
  - unishark 6y ago
    So hypothetically, people are dying from some easily-cured disease (this part is not the hypothetical), and a corrupt person wants to save their lives in order to "buy legitimacy". We must righteously prevent that person from doing good in the world, because it will complicate people's view of the person? Basically you're proposing to do an evil thing for a "greater good".
    - grugagag 6y ago
      Hypothetically that corrupt person might want to engage in eugenics of some sort. Let’s simply keep dirty money out of legit spaces or we might find mafia as a benefactor in some cases. As some mentioned here, the money Epstein donated was a drop in the bucket and insignificant but to him the ifluence he got in exchange was priceless
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      If you're meaning 'a convicted criminal guilty of a heinous crime' when you say "corrupt person" then why do we even allow them the ability to continue financially such that they can buy an appearance of legitimacy. Release them from prison with access to basic necessities (a half way house) and confiscate the rest - then the demos can direct the money to research without tainting it?
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Do you currently think that Epstein is legitimate because of his past donations? Harvard rejected his donations after his convictions. Who thinks he is legit?
gojomo 6y ago
I'd agree the building-access, especially when Epstein was a post-release sex-offender (and when most observers should have already suspected he'd gotten off easy), is most-concerning. But unless he was sneaking in after-hours to change experiments' results, it doesn't imply any research was distorted. Even something like "key card access" may have been entirely ceremonial in practice, if his actual visits were just scheduled meetings with real staff members. In fact, as an example of the kind of 'aura-of-respectability' he was purchasing, it's an example of how the research may have been left uninfluenced – because other trinkets-of-association were delivered. If he got some really, really expensive equivalents of 'Harvard Sweatshirts' for his money, it's less likely he'd be changing lines-of-inquiry in research programs. I don't find the 'visiting fellow' thing very significant. Harvard & others seem fairly generous with such empty titles, a bit like honorary degrees, that cost them no money but get some funding or reflected-glory back on them. (And, it's not clear if this particular credentialist tchotchke was pre- or post- Epstein's first conviction.) You are of course correct that it's sometimes surprising the tiny amounts of money people commit ethical infractions to chase. But there's no evidence, or anecdotes, in this article that rich-person money is more corrupting in research matters than that from large institutions, including foundations & the government. The favor-trading, citation-log-rolling, buttering-up, ego-stroking, clique-protecting and everything else academia is known for seems just as bad, or worse, among those competing for traditional "panel-allocated" resources as among those receiving rich-person grants.
knolax 6y ago
> For example, Martha Stewart was a billionaire when she engaged in insider trading and then lied about it to the FBI I can't say I know anyone who would be __ethically__ opposed to insider trading. From a regulatory view point most people would be against it, but I don't think anyone views it as a ethical issue.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  I think insider trading is unethical. There ya go
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    How would you react if you found out a good friend conducted insider trading? Where would you rank it on the scale of jay-waling to murder?
  - knolax 6y ago
    Why?
    - kingkawn 6y ago
      People work hard their whole lived and put that money into the market. If the market is rigged for insiders then those people are being robbed of their life’s work in a way that they could not have adjusted to or anticipated because the news that trades were based on was not available. It is grabbing money out of the pocket of people in a way that is deeply unfair. I know those types of folks aren’t the only investors, but they’re the ones who screwing them in this way is unethical.
WalterBright 6y ago
Stewart was found guilty of lying to the FBI, not insider trading. There wasn't enough evidence to convict her of the latter. Ironically, if she'd simply said nothing to the FBI, she would have walked.
- grugagag 6y ago
  The point was the small amount that she went to jail for, a drop in the bucket for her wealth
WalterBright 6y ago
The paymaster always calls the tune, whether it's the government, rich people, corporations, even crowdfunding. This is why free markets work better, because there are multiple paymasters with varying points of view, not just one.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  The tobacco companies were quite successful, yes. That's why disclosure of competing interests is mandatory these days, it mitigates somewhat the phenomenon of "one dollar, one vote".

alexryan 6y ago

if "Humans are known to compromise their ethics for relatively small amounts of money", how does transferring the ability to choose how money is spent from "humans who have money" to "humans who do not" solve the ethics problem?

s1artibartfast 6y ago

>getting world-renowned researchers to validate his crackpot theories of racial eugenics due to his wealth. Do you have more information on this? Is there evidence that funding recipients Martin Nowak and George Church actually had their area of study directed by Epstein, or that the science was fundamentally flawed. On a conceptual level, there is no reason that evil people cant use dirty money to fund good academics researchers that they happen to find interesting.

stainforth 6y ago
Yes, yes there is. Corrupt people should not be able to buy legitimacy.
- unishark 6y ago
  So hypothetically, people are dying from some easily-cured disease (this part is not the hypothetical), and a corrupt person wants to save their lives in order to "buy legitimacy". We must righteously prevent that person from doing good in the world, because it will complicate people's view of the person? Basically you're proposing to do an evil thing for a "greater good".
  - grugagag 6y ago
    Hypothetically that corrupt person might want to engage in eugenics of some sort. Let’s simply keep dirty money out of legit spaces or we might find mafia as a benefactor in some cases. As some mentioned here, the money Epstein donated was a drop in the bucket and insignificant but to him the ifluence he got in exchange was priceless
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    If you're meaning 'a convicted criminal guilty of a heinous crime' when you say "corrupt person" then why do we even allow them the ability to continue financially such that they can buy an appearance of legitimacy. Release them from prison with access to basic necessities (a half way house) and confiscate the rest - then the demos can direct the money to research without tainting it?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Do you currently think that Epstein is legitimate because of his past donations? Harvard rejected his donations after his convictions. Who thinks he is legit?

gojomo 6y ago

I'd agree the building-access, especially when Epstein was a post-release sex-offender (and when most observers should have already suspected he'd gotten off easy), is most-concerning. But unless he was sneaking in after-hours to change experiments' results, it doesn't imply any research was distorted. Even something like "key card access" may have been entirely ceremonial in practice, if his actual visits were just scheduled meetings with real staff members. In fact, as an example of the kind of 'aura-of-respectability' he was purchasing, it's an example of how the research may have been left uninfluenced – because other trinkets-of-association were delivered. If he got some really, really expensive equivalents of 'Harvard Sweatshirts' for his money, it's less likely he'd be changing lines-of-inquiry in research programs. I don't find the 'visiting fellow' thing very significant. Harvard & others seem fairly generous with such empty titles, a bit like honorary degrees, that cost them no money but get some funding or reflected-glory back on them. (And, it's not clear if this particular credentialist tchotchke was pre- or post- Epstein's first conviction.) You are of course correct that it's sometimes surprising the tiny amounts of money people commit ethical infractions to chase. But there's no evidence, or anecdotes, in this article that rich-person money is more corrupting in research matters than that from large institutions, including foundations & the government. The favor-trading, citation-log-rolling, buttering-up, ego-stroking, clique-protecting and everything else academia is known for seems just as bad, or worse, among those competing for traditional "panel-allocated" resources as among those receiving rich-person grants.

knolax 6y ago

> For example, Martha Stewart was a billionaire when she engaged in insider trading and then lied about it to the FBI I can't say I know anyone who would be __ethically__ opposed to insider trading. From a regulatory view point most people would be against it, but I don't think anyone views it as a ethical issue.

kingkawn 6y ago
I think insider trading is unethical. There ya go
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  How would you react if you found out a good friend conducted insider trading? Where would you rank it on the scale of jay-waling to murder?
- knolax 6y ago
  Why?
  - kingkawn 6y ago
    People work hard their whole lived and put that money into the market. If the market is rigged for insiders then those people are being robbed of their life’s work in a way that they could not have adjusted to or anticipated because the news that trades were based on was not available. It is grabbing money out of the pocket of people in a way that is deeply unfair. I know those types of folks aren’t the only investors, but they’re the ones who screwing them in this way is unethical.

WalterBright 6y ago

Stewart was found guilty of lying to the FBI, not insider trading. There wasn't enough evidence to convict her of the latter. Ironically, if she'd simply said nothing to the FBI, she would have walked.

grugagag 6y ago
The point was the small amount that she went to jail for, a drop in the bucket for her wealth

WalterBright 6y ago

The paymaster always calls the tune, whether it's the government, rich people, corporations, even crowdfunding. This is why free markets work better, because there are multiple paymasters with varying points of view, not just one.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
The tobacco companies were quite successful, yes. That's why disclosure of competing interests is mandatory these days, it mitigates somewhat the phenomenon of "one dollar, one vote".