5 ms·

It was stated that this was a social experiment. Given the fact that everyone knew what would happen, I hardly think this constitutes abuse. Diverting the money

It was stated that this was a social experiment. Given the fact that everyone knew what would happen, I hardly think this constitutes abuse. Diverting the money to a more worthy (in his view) cause, as some people were using it to buy food for the homeless, should have been an expected outcome.

Udo 15y ago
Yes, this is a social experiment. And as such I find this guy's moral code - as revealed by the experiment - severely lacking.
raganwald 15y ago
As a social experiment, if I leave my bike on my front lawn over night for weeks, eventually it will be stolen. Everybody expects this to happen eventually. Does this excuse the thief?
- kennywinker 15y ago
  Nope, but if you say "here is my bike, anyone can use it for whatever they want. Really, whatever. Go nuts." and then having someone say "I know, I'll send this bike to kids in Africa who don't have a bike!" doesn't count as theft.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    We’re speaking to different arguments. Your point appears to be that Jonathan setting up the experiment and the people paying into the experiment did so with the understanding that other people could do whatever they wanted with the money, and the OP has done whatever he wanted with the money. My point was simply that given any situation, the fact that we expect something to happen doesn’t automatically excuse any of the participants of responsibility for their choice. I am not judging the OP, merely pointing out that “everyone’s expectation of outcome” is not a valid defence if he has done something wrong. If you believe he hasn’t done anything wrong for other reasons, that’s fine, carry on.
    - jt2190 15y ago
      As you say, this doesn't excuse any of the participants. I find it disappointing, however, that this experiment failed to account for a very probable outcome. Please don't get me wrong. I love the spirit in which this experiment was conceived. At the same time, it's a shame that such an obvious miscalculation scuttled the whole thing so soon. It isn't easy to keep a good thing going.
- nick007 15y ago
  What if the thief donated the bike to charity?
  - raganwald 15y ago
    What if the thief was poorer than me?
VladRussian 15y ago
>It was stated that this was a social experiment. the phenomena of golden calf has been known for millennia. Condense enough value into one spot/artefact, and you'll get some people attracted to and mesmerized by it, the people who can't control themselves around it, coming close and touching it, not necessarily to privatize, just to feel and be around it and be associated/connected with it exactly like it happened with Odio. It is strange though that the triggering threshold for such behavior happened to be that low (ie. for anybody working in hi-tech and living in Bay Area) - iPad/$600 - that is surprising result of the experiment. >Diverting the money to a more worthy (in his view) cause there is big difference between diverting your own money from buying coffee/movies/etc to a supposedly more worthy cause (ie. act of charity) and diverting somebody else's money (such an act has different names and none of which is charity). How much of his own money he diverted to such a worthy cause?

Udo 15y ago

Yes, this is a social experiment. And as such I find this guy's moral code - as revealed by the experiment - severely lacking.

raganwald 15y ago

As a social experiment, if I leave my bike on my front lawn over night for weeks, eventually it will be stolen. Everybody expects this to happen eventually. Does this excuse the thief?

kennywinker 15y ago
Nope, but if you say "here is my bike, anyone can use it for whatever they want. Really, whatever. Go nuts." and then having someone say "I know, I'll send this bike to kids in Africa who don't have a bike!" doesn't count as theft.
- raganwald 15y ago
  We’re speaking to different arguments. Your point appears to be that Jonathan setting up the experiment and the people paying into the experiment did so with the understanding that other people could do whatever they wanted with the money, and the OP has done whatever he wanted with the money. My point was simply that given any situation, the fact that we expect something to happen doesn’t automatically excuse any of the participants of responsibility for their choice. I am not judging the OP, merely pointing out that “everyone’s expectation of outcome” is not a valid defence if he has done something wrong. If you believe he hasn’t done anything wrong for other reasons, that’s fine, carry on.
  - jt2190 15y ago
    As you say, this doesn't excuse any of the participants. I find it disappointing, however, that this experiment failed to account for a very probable outcome. Please don't get me wrong. I love the spirit in which this experiment was conceived. At the same time, it's a shame that such an obvious miscalculation scuttled the whole thing so soon. It isn't easy to keep a good thing going.
nick007 15y ago
What if the thief donated the bike to charity?
- raganwald 15y ago
  What if the thief was poorer than me?

VladRussian 15y ago

>It was stated that this was a social experiment. the phenomena of golden calf has been known for millennia. Condense enough value into one spot/artefact, and you'll get some people attracted to and mesmerized by it, the people who can't control themselves around it, coming close and touching it, not necessarily to privatize, just to feel and be around it and be associated/connected with it exactly like it happened with Odio. It is strange though that the triggering threshold for such behavior happened to be that low (ie. for anybody working in hi-tech and living in Bay Area) - iPad/$600 - that is surprising result of the experiment. >Diverting the money to a more worthy (in his view) cause there is big difference between diverting your own money from buying coffee/movies/etc to a supposedly more worthy cause (ie. act of charity) and diverting somebody else's money (such an act has different names and none of which is charity). How much of his own money he diverted to such a worthy cause?