4 ms·

To reframe the situation, we have, presumably, a single person making a decision and a number of other people, who could see what was going on, deciding to play

by Produce 15y ago

To reframe the situation, we have, presumably, a single person making a decision and a number of other people, who could see what was going on, deciding to play along. A counter argument is that they're just doing what they need to to keep their jobs. One could argue that the person in charge was doing exactly the same. It's irrational to punish just one person for this when so many more were involved. EDIT: What, exactly, do you all disagree with?

prospero 15y ago
"It's what I had to do to keep my job" isn't some sort of cure-all justification for unethical/criminal behavior.
- Produce 15y ago
  That was the point I was trying to make :) OP suggested that whoever made the decision should face criminal liability. I said that all the other people involved should face it too.
  - chc 15y ago
    I know that somebody is going to starve to death in Africa today. I am not going to fly to Africa, track them down and stop it. That does not make me morally equal to a back-alley mugger. There are different degrees of volition and complicity.
    - true_religion 15y ago
      That isn't an argument against what he said. He said that all those involved should be charged. You're giving an example of vague knowledge without involvement.
- jackpirate 15y ago
  It is possible that no individual person knew the full scope of what was happening. What is needed is anytime a company pursues legal action is a line from the CEO (or delegate) saying they are fully aware of the details of this case and take personal responsibility for its correctness.
  - wnight 15y ago
    What is needed is to charge the company directly as well as any specific people. Nothing should happen without oversight and that's the company's responsibility, in the way a warranty return is the company's, not the mailroom guy's, responsibility. The discussion is a bit like the Chinese-Room thought experiment. Would you charge the worker if the manual on deciphering Chinese was actually a manual on running a Ponzi scheme in Chinese? In some hypotheses it might be unclear to the workers that the process is ultimately unjust, but practically (speaking as someone who's been (briefly) employed at a few shady companies), intentional ignorance of their effects, and usually an attitude that the customer deserved it for not knowing better, are pervasive from customer service up to management.

by Produce 15y ago

prospero 15y ago

"It's what I had to do to keep my job" isn't some sort of cure-all justification for unethical/criminal behavior.

Produce 15y ago
That was the point I was trying to make :) OP suggested that whoever made the decision should face criminal liability. I said that all the other people involved should face it too.
- chc 15y ago
  I know that somebody is going to starve to death in Africa today. I am not going to fly to Africa, track them down and stop it. That does not make me morally equal to a back-alley mugger. There are different degrees of volition and complicity.
  - true_religion 15y ago
    That isn't an argument against what he said. He said that all those involved should be charged. You're giving an example of vague knowledge without involvement.
jackpirate 15y ago
It is possible that no individual person knew the full scope of what was happening. What is needed is anytime a company pursues legal action is a line from the CEO (or delegate) saying they are fully aware of the details of this case and take personal responsibility for its correctness.
- wnight 15y ago
  What is needed is to charge the company directly as well as any specific people. Nothing should happen without oversight and that's the company's responsibility, in the way a warranty return is the company's, not the mailroom guy's, responsibility. The discussion is a bit like the Chinese-Room thought experiment. Would you charge the worker if the manual on deciphering Chinese was actually a manual on running a Ponzi scheme in Chinese? In some hypotheses it might be unclear to the workers that the process is ultimately unjust, but practically (speaking as someone who's been (briefly) employed at a few shady companies), intentional ignorance of their effects, and usually an attitude that the customer deserved it for not knowing better, are pervasive from customer service up to management.