3 ms·

You cannot compare individual, and abstract entities such as states. Humans feel empathy. States (and corporations) only follow interests.

by malka 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
slg 6y ago
>Humans feel empathy. States (and corporations) only follow interests. This is such a bizarre statement to me. States and corporations are made of people. For the states and corporations to lack empathy it means the people controlling them are lacking empathy.
- malka 6y ago
  people without empathy ends up either in prison, or as a top dog. So yeah, IMO corporations and states are ruled by ruthless people. I do not trust them at all.
- NhanH 6y ago
  States and corporations have incentives/ goals (which is actually independent from any single human inside the organization). The incentives then got turn into smaller incentives for the human that they are made of. For states and corporations to have empathy, the empathy of the human inside will need to be stronger than their incentives. This is a lot different than a single human only need empathy to not do bad things.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Its bizzare that you doubt it - you mist have been fortunate to never have been harmed by a faceless bureaucracy. There is an entire genre of kafkaesque literature, where the whole system is so broken that even top officials synpathetic to your plight cannot help you. There is 'computer says no' situation where a bank clerk wants to give you a mortgage, but cannot because the computer system flagged something, but wont tell you or him what it is. This is a well known and understood problem, to argue that it doesnt exist is just to live in denial.
  - slg 6y ago
    The bureaucracy stops being faceless the moment you encounter a human. If the human is unwilling to help you, that is on that human. If that human is unable to help you, that is the human who put that obstacle in the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy isn't making any actions itself. To be clear, I am not defending governments, corporations, or bureaucracies. I am pointing out those things are too often used as a shield so the individual can divorce themselves from the results of their actions.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Would you be able to force your company to make a donation of $100 to save someone's life? Like actually get a major corporation like Google to move the money out of their bank account as a regular rank-and-file developer? If not, are you evil, or is Google evil? The system is often setup in such a way that the person who is setting the rules doesn't see their impact and doesn't even know you exist, and the person who sees your plight is powerless to help you. Cruel system can arise with no intention, just stupidity.
      - slg 6y ago
        >Would you be able to force your company to make a donation of $100 to save someone's life? Maybe it is because I work for a company that has a value measured in the singular billions rather than the singular trillions like Google, but the answer is yes. I could rather easily get $100 of company money to save a life. You are going to have to set the cost much higher than $100 before it gets to the point that I couldn't get that done myself or with the help of someone I already have a direct relationship with. >The system is often setup in such a way that the person who is setting the rules doesn't see their impact and doesn't even know you exist, and the person who sees your plight is powerless to help you. Cruel system can arise with no intention, just stupidity. Those rules are often setup specifically to give the people who see your plight an out for acting without empathy. That doesn't mean there is never an opportunity for them to give in to their empathy and bend some rules. It also doesn't mean that the person who set the rules is innocent or ignorant of the harm they did. They just absolve themselves of it through their own lack of empathy. It is not them committing these acts, it is "the company".
xboxnolifes 6y ago
I feel that it's more the fact that a single person is always the same person (physically) over their lifetime, while a state and corporation is a rotating door of people and philosophies. The same idea as how a Monarchy can be a fine government system until you get that one terrible king.

You cannot compare individual, and abstract entities such as states. Humans feel empathy. States (and corporations) only follow interests.

by malka 6y ago

You cannot compare individual, and abstract entities such as states. Humans feel empathy. States (and corporations) only follow interests.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

slg 6y ago

>Humans feel empathy. States (and corporations) only follow interests. This is such a bizarre statement to me. States and corporations are made of people. For the states and corporations to lack empathy it means the people controlling them are lacking empathy.

malka 6y ago
people without empathy ends up either in prison, or as a top dog. So yeah, IMO corporations and states are ruled by ruthless people. I do not trust them at all.
NhanH 6y ago
States and corporations have incentives/ goals (which is actually independent from any single human inside the organization). The incentives then got turn into smaller incentives for the human that they are made of. For states and corporations to have empathy, the empathy of the human inside will need to be stronger than their incentives. This is a lot different than a single human only need empathy to not do bad things.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Its bizzare that you doubt it - you mist have been fortunate to never have been harmed by a faceless bureaucracy. There is an entire genre of kafkaesque literature, where the whole system is so broken that even top officials synpathetic to your plight cannot help you. There is 'computer says no' situation where a bank clerk wants to give you a mortgage, but cannot because the computer system flagged something, but wont tell you or him what it is. This is a well known and understood problem, to argue that it doesnt exist is just to live in denial.
- slg 6y ago
  The bureaucracy stops being faceless the moment you encounter a human. If the human is unwilling to help you, that is on that human. If that human is unable to help you, that is the human who put that obstacle in the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy isn't making any actions itself. To be clear, I am not defending governments, corporations, or bureaucracies. I am pointing out those things are too often used as a shield so the individual can divorce themselves from the results of their actions.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Would you be able to force your company to make a donation of $100 to save someone's life? Like actually get a major corporation like Google to move the money out of their bank account as a regular rank-and-file developer? If not, are you evil, or is Google evil? The system is often setup in such a way that the person who is setting the rules doesn't see their impact and doesn't even know you exist, and the person who sees your plight is powerless to help you. Cruel system can arise with no intention, just stupidity.
    - slg 6y ago
      >Would you be able to force your company to make a donation of $100 to save someone's life? Maybe it is because I work for a company that has a value measured in the singular billions rather than the singular trillions like Google, but the answer is yes. I could rather easily get $100 of company money to save a life. You are going to have to set the cost much higher than $100 before it gets to the point that I couldn't get that done myself or with the help of someone I already have a direct relationship with. >The system is often setup in such a way that the person who is setting the rules doesn't see their impact and doesn't even know you exist, and the person who sees your plight is powerless to help you. Cruel system can arise with no intention, just stupidity. Those rules are often setup specifically to give the people who see your plight an out for acting without empathy. That doesn't mean there is never an opportunity for them to give in to their empathy and bend some rules. It also doesn't mean that the person who set the rules is innocent or ignorant of the harm they did. They just absolve themselves of it through their own lack of empathy. It is not them committing these acts, it is "the company".

xboxnolifes 6y ago

I feel that it's more the fact that a single person is always the same person (physically) over their lifetime, while a state and corporation is a rotating door of people and philosophies. The same idea as how a Monarchy can be a fine government system until you get that one terrible king.