4 ms·
It's not about being disgruntled, it's about not wanting your family to go hungry because you were only able to deliver three hundred packages in ten hours by t
by GavinMcG 5y ago
It's not about being disgruntled, it's about not wanting your family to go hungry because you were only able to deliver three hundred packages in ten hours by taking extra care.
There's a difference between destroying someone's stuff because you hate your job and just not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job.
- mavhc 5y agoExactly what the game Papers Please is about
- IncRnd 5y ago> There's a difference between destroying someone's stuff because you hate your job and just not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job. What is the difference, when you said you destroyed the packages in each case?
- nooneknows 5y agoThe difference is the intention.
- IncRnd 5y agoBut, the results are the same in either case. People's property gets destroyed. If the results are the same, what is the actual, real-world difference?
- GavinMcG 5y agoWell, no, you can bet if I hate my employer and therefore destroy people's stuff, that stuff is getting destroyed. Tossing a cardboard box just doesn't do much the majority of the time.
- alexanderdmitri 5y agoIt depends on your angle. If your looking to solve the problem, the root cause very much informs the solution. If your looking to prosecute, intention and context often inform the severity of the charge(s) and determination of guilt (ie man-slaughter v. first-degree murder).
- zouhair 5y agoThat's not the workers problem.
- IncRnd 5y agoPeople aren't responsible for their own actions?
- CydeWeys 5y ago> not caring about someone's stuff because you want your job. Because you need your job, even. It's not just a want.
- RHSeeger 5y agoThat exact same argument would hold true for drug dealers, mob enforcers, and a whole variety of people that do bad things. Sure, the mob boss is a bad guy for having the enforcer break someone's shop up; but the enforcer is _also_ a bad guy for doing it.
- GavinMcG 5y agoI'm not sure why people keep equating carelessness with actual malice. Yes, obviously both the boss and the enforcer are bad for doing harmful things with an evil mind. That's just not the same as apathy.
- RHSeeger 5y agoTaking actions that you know put someone else's personal property at risk _is_ malice. It's less malice than actively breaking it, but it is actively making a choice to put something that belongs to someone else in harm's way.
- GavinMcG 5y agoNo, it's not. Neither is minor speeding, for example. It's a lack of care and awareness about the consequences of one's actions - hardly a desire for those consequences. You say "active" and the whole point is that it isn't.
- klyrs 5y agoIf the mob boss holds leverage over the enforcer (first a debt with threat of violence, and later evidence of the enforcer's crimes) then the enforcer might not be such a bad person. This is a big reason that lower level criminals are offered witness protection in exchange for information