6 ms·
It's a distinction without a difference.
by kesselvon 5y ago
It's a distinction without a difference.
- duxup 5y agoI think motivation and the intent of the policy is relevant.
- ryandrake 5y agoThe Purpose Of A System Is What It Does[1]. It doesn't really matter what the motivation or intent was. If the outcome is cruelty, then it is a cruel policy. If the people who make the policy don't intend for the outcome to be cruel, it is within their power to change it. EDIT: If the outcome is also a high performing workforce, then the policy can be both cruel and performance enhancing. I'm just arguing that a policy that ends up being $X is an $X policy, regardless of whether the policy makers intended it to be $X, for whatever value of X you choose. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
- duxup 5y agoIf the outcome is performance?
- slibhb 5y agoWhat absolute nonsense. You could just as easily say "since Amazon performs well, the purpose of Amazon is performance". Anyway, intent and motivation are clearly relevant when we think about moral issues (such as cruelty). To suggest otherwise is absurd.
- bildung 5y agoIntent and motivation are describing human thought process. We can apply this metaphorically to corporations to illustrate a point, but corporations can't literally have motivations. Systems theory (and thus the above heuristic) describes entities like Amazon.
- 411111111111111 5y agoYou should think about the phrase "the way to hell is paved with good intentions" a little sometime. Intents and motivations are irrelevant when you look at their effect (which cruelty is). Heck even the worst dictator in known history had wanted to make the world a "better place" in his own, twisted way. Some things just aren't worth their price.
- slibhb 5y agoWow I didn't expect a reductio ad hitlerum in this thread. What is the "effect of Amazon" anyway? Surely Amazon has done a lot of good. It has created jobs, it has changed how people buy things. It has also done a lot of bad. It has made it harder for small indepdendent businesses, it has engaged in anticompetitive practices. How am I supposed to "sum up" Amazon's "overall effect"? Truthfully, I have no idea if Amazon is "good" or "bad" or "cruel" and neither does anyone else. The people making these claims confidently are posers.
- xibalba 5y agoSo you believe that performance and cruelty are not different?
- tmp_anon_22 5y agoIf performance is subjective (# of tickets, "impact", cut of your jib, etc) and at times applied arbitrarily by a manager, would applying such a flawed assessment to the detriment of someone's career, livelihood, and personal happiness, not also be cruel? If you honestly believe these rating systems are objective, consistent, and applied fairly, sure performance measurements are not cruel. But I argue most of the time they are at the discretion of management - and will reflect the worst qualities of that manager.
- castlecrasher2 5y ago>If performance is subjective (# of tickets, "impact", cut of your jib, etc) and at times applied arbitrarily by a manager, would applying such a flawed assessment to the detriment of someone's career, livelihood, and personal happiness, not also be cruel? Through this lens, everything in life is cruel.
- tmp_anon_22 5y agoMy statement was not that abstract. Those who have the power to inflict punitive damage on others should be really careful about when they apply that power. The premise of my argument is that tech org management is sometimes so careless with the way that they hire and fire that sometimes it is cruel.