3 ms·

> "First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud." Maybe for a journalist with an organization backing them (paying the legal expe

> "First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud." Maybe for a journalist with an organization backing them (paying the legal expenses), but generally speaking people aren't ethically obliged to pick legal fights with those richer and more powerful than them.

nullc 4y ago
In the sense that no one is pretty much ever obligated to come to the aid of another legally, sure. But ethically? I'm less sure about about that. The willingness of people to do the right thing at their own risk for the benefit of others is part of what makes civilization work. And if your failure to remark might be seen by others as approval, then I think it can rise to an ethical obligation. If you become known for being competent about anything in particular it can be hard to avoid situations where you silence isn't seen as approval.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Any system of ethics which obliges you to disregard your own wellbeing is a death cult. Are you ethically obliged to throw yourself in front of a trolley to save several other people? If you think so, you've been indoctrinated into a death cult.
  - nullc 4y ago
    Come on. I hope you don't think that not failing to call out nonsense when your inaction will make other people get defrauded is the same as literally being killed by a trolley. Why even reply on HN? It may be adverse to your wellbeing in the future, and doesn't confer any particular benefit to you today.
    - knewter 4y ago
      Fighting petty people that are much wealthier than you can run your life nearly as thoroughly. I'm fascinated when people skip understanding the analogy but argue anyway.
      - nullc 4y ago
        So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"?
        knewter 4y ago
        No. I am of the view that people claiming others have an ethical obligation to report these things are making this claim from a position of safety that is not shared by the person they are advising.
        nullc 4y ago
        But surely you would agree one is obligated to write an uncritical puff piece about someone they suspect is a fraud? -- they could say nothing instead.
        knewter 4y ago
        Suspecting someone is a fraud is one thing. Implying someone is a fraud in print without clear evidence is another, and it is typically followed up on with at least a threatening letter on corporate lawyer letterhead. Maybe they could've written another piece. I'm sure they invested a fair bit of time into learning what they did to write the piece they had. At any rate, none of that matters. The ancestor post that matters was: > "First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud." I disagree with that statement for all of the reasons I have mentioned. In fact, all I did was point out that you were being obtuse, either intentionally or otherwise, because you couldn't make the analogy-leap from "death by trolley" to "your life is now only about this lawsuit and all of your other interests must be ignored for 6-14 months". > So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"? No. Those are the words of another commenter. My thinking that it's laughable that people pretend they don't know how analogies work does not logically imply that I share the views of the person that happened to encourage you to demonstrate it. Anyway, I think he's conceptually right. I wouldn't use the phrase "death cult." Not because there's anything wrong with it - it's just not in my regular vernacular.

nullc 4y ago

In the sense that no one is pretty much ever obligated to come to the aid of another legally, sure. But ethically? I'm less sure about about that. The willingness of people to do the right thing at their own risk for the benefit of others is part of what makes civilization work. And if your failure to remark might be seen by others as approval, then I think it can rise to an ethical obligation. If you become known for being competent about anything in particular it can be hard to avoid situations where you silence isn't seen as approval.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Any system of ethics which obliges you to disregard your own wellbeing is a death cult. Are you ethically obliged to throw yourself in front of a trolley to save several other people? If you think so, you've been indoctrinated into a death cult.
- nullc 4y ago
  Come on. I hope you don't think that not failing to call out nonsense when your inaction will make other people get defrauded is the same as literally being killed by a trolley. Why even reply on HN? It may be adverse to your wellbeing in the future, and doesn't confer any particular benefit to you today.
  - knewter 4y ago
    Fighting petty people that are much wealthier than you can run your life nearly as thoroughly. I'm fascinated when people skip understanding the analogy but argue anyway.
    - nullc 4y ago
      So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"?
      - knewter 4y ago
        No. I am of the view that people claiming others have an ethical obligation to report these things are making this claim from a position of safety that is not shared by the person they are advising.
        nullc 4y ago
        But surely you would agree one is obligated to write an uncritical puff piece about someone they suspect is a fraud? -- they could say nothing instead.
        knewter 4y ago
        Suspecting someone is a fraud is one thing. Implying someone is a fraud in print without clear evidence is another, and it is typically followed up on with at least a threatening letter on corporate lawyer letterhead. Maybe they could've written another piece. I'm sure they invested a fair bit of time into learning what they did to write the piece they had. At any rate, none of that matters. The ancestor post that matters was: > "First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud." I disagree with that statement for all of the reasons I have mentioned. In fact, all I did was point out that you were being obtuse, either intentionally or otherwise, because you couldn't make the analogy-leap from "death by trolley" to "your life is now only about this lawsuit and all of your other interests must be ignored for 6-14 months". > So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"? No. Those are the words of another commenter. My thinking that it's laughable that people pretend they don't know how analogies work does not logically imply that I share the views of the person that happened to encourage you to demonstrate it. Anyway, I think he's conceptually right. I wouldn't use the phrase "death cult." Not because there's anything wrong with it - it's just not in my regular vernacular.