4 ms·

I mean, it's called a hypothetical. They're pretty common. They can even be used as thought experiments to bring out interesting aspects of moral questions.

by samhw 5y ago

Kranar 5y ago
If the person bringing up the hypothetical were remotely as talented as the people on this list and then made a claim that they'd refuse a free $100,000 in order to advance their interests, that would be a worthwhile discussion. Then we can expand on their point of view, what tradeoffs they make, what actual resources or funding they made use of as well as the kind of diligence they performed when accepting money... In the absence of those qualifications, some random person saying they'd refuse 100k knowing full they're not in a position to have it offered to them is nothing more than a cheap claim and does nothing but demean the talent and judgement of those who choose to accept it.
- samhw 5y ago
  I don't see what that has to do with anything. They are equally qualified to discuss the moral aspects of the question, which is what they are discussing. This feels like a lame attempt to shame the other commenter out of a point you couldn't answer - and on the basis of a standard you wouldn't pass yourself either.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    No they are not equally qualified to discuss the moral aspect of it because they have nothing at risk. It's very easy to make cheap moral claims when there is nothing at stake. What's interesting is the kind of moral decisions and tradeoffs an individual makes when there is something at stake. The fact that this person is not in a position to stake anything makes their claim entirely vacuous and superficial. First go off and start a company working on nuclear energy or electric airplanes, get to a point in your life where someone cares to offer you $100k for nothing in return, then feel free to talk about the tradeoffs and difficult balancing act that leads you to refuse it. That can be an interesting discussion... Some nobody just chiming in with nothing other than a claim that they'd refuse to take money that they're in no position to even be offered is cheap posturing.
    - samhw 5y ago
      OK, this is now closer to approaching a cogent counter-argument. So why exactly is it that having something at stake would lead someone to answer that question differently? And why do you think human beings can't think hypothetically about the condition of having something at stake, the same way we can think hypothetically about most everything else?
- johnny_b_g 5y ago
  - samhw 5y ago
    Yeah, I don't think I've seen such an incoherent attempt to ban someone from having an opinion. It's on a level with saying you can't disapprove of Harold Shipman until you've got a medical degree. Presumably we all have to spend the rest of our lives running around getting various professional qualifications and careers, just so that we can have opinions on utterly generic moral questions which happen to be faced by someone with that degree.
    - johnny_b_g 5y ago
      Indeed - apparently my Trump bashing was "unqualified", so I now have to go and run for President, get elected, be President for 4 years, and then I can start bashing him.
      - samhw 5y ago
        There are some other things on that todo list ('rape first wife', 'cheat on pregnant third wife with pornstar', 'publicly blame your failed business on a dead man before his funeral had even taken place', 'send deranged tweets to Kim Jong Un while on cough medicine and alprazolam') but you'll get to them ;) But nah, seriously, I don't know how some people can say such absolutely witless stuff, and still see fit to click 'send'. I think they are just nonplussed that not everyone else has the same Ubermensch ethic as they do, where anyone sufficiently rich or accomplished is exempted from the moral requirements incumbent on normal human beings. They worship them, to put it simply - the rich and powerful - and they don't understand & can't process that not everyone else does.
        johnny_b_g 5y ago
        Exactly. I'm not a Facebook user, mostly because of the vast and repeated privacy violations they've committed in the past (not to mention their monopoly behaviors and political influencing, etc.) - but because I don't run/own/fund any similar monopolistic entity, I'm essentially forbidden from even talking about it?? Another is ClearView AI (oh look, another Thiel-funded thing!) - I oppose the existence of that company based on their entire business model being the abuse of people's information without consent, and how they expect you to cancel yourself to prevent being abused by them [1]. But according to some people [2], anyone that hasn't been abusing people's privacy cannot have an opinion on ClearView AI's actions [3], until you actually do so yourself [4], otherwise you're just "posturing" [4][5]. Yeah, great logic! > They worship them, to put it simply - the rich and powerful - and they don't understand & can't process that not everyone else does. What's worse are the ones that go out of their way to justify or even apologize their behavior (not unlike those part of a certain political cult right now). [1] https://app.clearview.ai/privacy/deindex https://app.clearview.ai/privacy/deindex [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Kranar https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Kranar [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858726 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858764 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858663
- lupire 5y ago
  Tens of thousands of FAMANGA employees get $100K+ per year above and beyond a great income, which they can use for whatever they care about. A $100K fellowship gift isn't so different.

I mean, it's called a hypothetical. They're pretty common. They can even be used as thought experiments to bring out interesting aspects of moral questions.

by samhw 5y ago

I mean, it's called a hypothetical. They're pretty common. They can even be used as thought experiments to bring out interesting aspects of moral questions.

Kranar 5y ago

If the person bringing up the hypothetical were remotely as talented as the people on this list and then made a claim that they'd refuse a free $100,000 in order to advance their interests, that would be a worthwhile discussion. Then we can expand on their point of view, what tradeoffs they make, what actual resources or funding they made use of as well as the kind of diligence they performed when accepting money... In the absence of those qualifications, some random person saying they'd refuse 100k knowing full they're not in a position to have it offered to them is nothing more than a cheap claim and does nothing but demean the talent and judgement of those who choose to accept it.

samhw 5y ago
I don't see what that has to do with anything. They are equally qualified to discuss the moral aspects of the question, which is what they are discussing. This feels like a lame attempt to shame the other commenter out of a point you couldn't answer - and on the basis of a standard you wouldn't pass yourself either.
- Kranar 5y ago
  No they are not equally qualified to discuss the moral aspect of it because they have nothing at risk. It's very easy to make cheap moral claims when there is nothing at stake. What's interesting is the kind of moral decisions and tradeoffs an individual makes when there is something at stake. The fact that this person is not in a position to stake anything makes their claim entirely vacuous and superficial. First go off and start a company working on nuclear energy or electric airplanes, get to a point in your life where someone cares to offer you $100k for nothing in return, then feel free to talk about the tradeoffs and difficult balancing act that leads you to refuse it. That can be an interesting discussion... Some nobody just chiming in with nothing other than a claim that they'd refuse to take money that they're in no position to even be offered is cheap posturing.
  - samhw 5y ago
    OK, this is now closer to approaching a cogent counter-argument. So why exactly is it that having something at stake would lead someone to answer that question differently? And why do you think human beings can't think hypothetically about the condition of having something at stake, the same way we can think hypothetically about most everything else?
johnny_b_g 5y ago
- samhw 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't think I've seen such an incoherent attempt to ban someone from having an opinion. It's on a level with saying you can't disapprove of Harold Shipman until you've got a medical degree. Presumably we all have to spend the rest of our lives running around getting various professional qualifications and careers, just so that we can have opinions on utterly generic moral questions which happen to be faced by someone with that degree.
  - johnny_b_g 5y ago
    Indeed - apparently my Trump bashing was "unqualified", so I now have to go and run for President, get elected, be President for 4 years, and then I can start bashing him.
    - samhw 5y ago
      There are some other things on that todo list ('rape first wife', 'cheat on pregnant third wife with pornstar', 'publicly blame your failed business on a dead man before his funeral had even taken place', 'send deranged tweets to Kim Jong Un while on cough medicine and alprazolam') but you'll get to them ;) But nah, seriously, I don't know how some people can say such absolutely witless stuff, and still see fit to click 'send'. I think they are just nonplussed that not everyone else has the same Ubermensch ethic as they do, where anyone sufficiently rich or accomplished is exempted from the moral requirements incumbent on normal human beings. They worship them, to put it simply - the rich and powerful - and they don't understand & can't process that not everyone else does.
      - johnny_b_g 5y ago
        Exactly. I'm not a Facebook user, mostly because of the vast and repeated privacy violations they've committed in the past (not to mention their monopoly behaviors and political influencing, etc.) - but because I don't run/own/fund any similar monopolistic entity, I'm essentially forbidden from even talking about it?? Another is ClearView AI (oh look, another Thiel-funded thing!) - I oppose the existence of that company based on their entire business model being the abuse of people's information without consent, and how they expect you to cancel yourself to prevent being abused by them [1]. But according to some people [2], anyone that hasn't been abusing people's privacy cannot have an opinion on ClearView AI's actions [3], until you actually do so yourself [4], otherwise you're just "posturing" [4][5]. Yeah, great logic! > They worship them, to put it simply - the rich and powerful - and they don't understand & can't process that not everyone else does. What's worse are the ones that go out of their way to justify or even apologize their behavior (not unlike those part of a certain political cult right now). [1] https://app.clearview.ai/privacy/deindex https://app.clearview.ai/privacy/deindex [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Kranar https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Kranar [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858726 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858764 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858663
lupire 5y ago
Tens of thousands of FAMANGA employees get $100K+ per year above and beyond a great income, which they can use for whatever they care about. A $100K fellowship gift isn't so different.