25 ms·

The point isn't that the clinics are not morally culpable, but only that they are a natural response to government incentives over which the government has excl

The point isn't that the clinics are not morally culpable, but only that they are a natural response to government incentives over which the government has exclusive control.

sgift 6y ago
Doing something morally wrong is not a natural response. It is a natural response option. To paraphrase Jurassic Park: [Clinics] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should. Not everyone chooses to do something morally wrong, just because "I'm allowed to! And it makes life easier!"
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > Not everyone chooses to do something morally wrong, just because "I'm allowed to! And it makes life easier!" But plenty choose to do something morally wrong because "I have to put bread on my table, and I'm about to go out of business because I can't compete with everyone else doing the immoral thing". This is the mechanism by which the market eliminates ethics from our lives, step by step. If doing something slightly wrong gives you a competitive advantage, you'll take it or you'll get outcompeted by everyone else who do.
- giantDinosaur 6y ago
  The government incentives were clearly going to result in private-island driven dinosaur experiments. If the incentives had been to welcome such genetic experimentation in a controlled manner then regulators would have noticed the predatory behaviour of the velociraptors before it became a problem. Again, it's about risk/incentive management, not about judging those who dare to go too far. The T-Rex will eat you even as you shake your fist at its unethical re-creator. Better to not merely hope that everyone chooses the friendliest route by virtue of human nature.
- mattcwilson 6y ago
  You are absolutely right - it’s an option. If we keep setting up situations where people have an unethical option, I’m not sure we should act surprised by them taking it. We can, it’s an option, but it seems naive. The government had the option to think through their policymaking more fully. What accountability should they have for that? If we award points for “trying, with good intentions”, and not for “actual outcome” we are in for a lot more bad outcomes from earnest triers.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  How does one define "morally wrong"? Honest business by eastern Massachusetts standards would have you labeled a swindler in southern Indiana. There are large swaths of the US where "if the option is there then there's no shame in taking it" and "if you don't cash in you're only hurting yourself because someone else will" are just how normal business is done.

The point isn't that the clinics are not morally culpable, but only that they are a natural response to government incentives over which the government has exclusive control.

sgift 6y ago

Doing something morally wrong is not a natural response. It is a natural response option. To paraphrase Jurassic Park: [Clinics] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should. Not everyone chooses to do something morally wrong, just because "I'm allowed to! And it makes life easier!"

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Not everyone chooses to do something morally wrong, just because "I'm allowed to! And it makes life easier!" But plenty choose to do something morally wrong because "I have to put bread on my table, and I'm about to go out of business because I can't compete with everyone else doing the immoral thing". This is the mechanism by which the market eliminates ethics from our lives, step by step. If doing something slightly wrong gives you a competitive advantage, you'll take it or you'll get outcompeted by everyone else who do.
giantDinosaur 6y ago
The government incentives were clearly going to result in private-island driven dinosaur experiments. If the incentives had been to welcome such genetic experimentation in a controlled manner then regulators would have noticed the predatory behaviour of the velociraptors before it became a problem. Again, it's about risk/incentive management, not about judging those who dare to go too far. The T-Rex will eat you even as you shake your fist at its unethical re-creator. Better to not merely hope that everyone chooses the friendliest route by virtue of human nature.
mattcwilson 6y ago
You are absolutely right - it’s an option. If we keep setting up situations where people have an unethical option, I’m not sure we should act surprised by them taking it. We can, it’s an option, but it seems naive. The government had the option to think through their policymaking more fully. What accountability should they have for that? If we award points for “trying, with good intentions”, and not for “actual outcome” we are in for a lot more bad outcomes from earnest triers.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
How does one define "morally wrong"? Honest business by eastern Massachusetts standards would have you labeled a swindler in southern Indiana. There are large swaths of the US where "if the option is there then there's no shame in taking it" and "if you don't cash in you're only hurting yourself because someone else will" are just how normal business is done.