3 ms·

The fact is, there are innumerable factors that affect people's decision-making in situations like this. The ability to decide whether or not a course of action

by csallen 15y ago

The fact is, there are innumerable factors that affect people's decision-making in situations like this. The ability to decide whether or not a course of action is ethical is greatly affected by what your competitors are doing, groupthink, incentives, time pressures, etc. I could keep going. And yes, your ability to "get away with it" is also a factor. Now you may say, "Who cares what the factors are? A wrong decision is a wrong decision." And you're right. However, as a practical person who wants to see real change come about, I cannot be satisfied with the run-of-the-mill, "They did it because they're evil and untrustworthy" response. People are rarely inherently evil. I find it hard to believe that this group of engineers is really so different from you and I. It's likely that all of us grew up in similar environments, have gone through similar experiences, and possess similar moral beliefs. So aren't you the least bit curious why they're capable of making a decision you could never imagine yourself making? I think simply dismissing them as untrustworthy people is an irresponsible and short-sighted reaction. Human beings are more complex than that. A lot of teachers believed that the only students who cheat are the dishonest ones. Well, some clever psychologists came along and -- lo and behold -- they showed that under the right circumstances, you can convince almost any student to cheat. That's the nature of humans. Like it or not, we react to situations much more than to our personal moral codes. No amount of shaming greedy bankers, book-padding executives, dishonest politicians, privacy-invading programmers, etc is going to work. If we want to effect real change, we need to change the systems that allow for and incentivize this type of behavior. I highly recommend reading up on basic human psychology. Influence (by Robert Cialdini) is a good place to start. Charlie Munger's writings, although unorthodox, are also great.

yeggeyeggeyegge 15y ago
>The ability to decide whether or not a course of action is ethical is greatly affected by what your competitors are doing, groupthink, incentives, time pressures, etc. No, its not. You do not kill a person over any of these. You do not kill someones trust in you over any of these. >I cannot be satisfied with the run-of-the-mill, "They did it because they're evil and untrustworthy" response. Then how about that they are shitty crappy company who are unconcerned about ethical matters of things and more concerned about what they can get away with. You know that they must have spent considerable time and effort to enable their app and service to steal all Contact data in the first place, right? >I think simply dismissing them as untrustworthy people is an irresponsible and short-sighted reaction. Human beings are more complex than that. irresponsible, irresponsible? What shit are you smoking chief? I have zero responsibility for their actions, or the pubic outrage against it, or my own reaction to crap. Let them rot in hell for all I care. >convince almost any student to cheat. That's the nature of humans. I am alarmed, you are now equating cheating under the right circumstances, to planned and intentional thieving under business as usual. >I highly recommend reading up on basic human psychology and I highly recommend some common sense.
- csallen 15y ago
  No, its not. You do not kill a person over any of these... they are shitty crappy company who are unconcerned about ethical matters of things You're oversimplifying human behavior. It's not as simple as "bad people do bad things." There are COUNTLESS examples in which large groups of decent people have acted in horrifying, deplorable ways. And our psychologists know enough to reproduce this type of behavior in a lab. Read about the Milgram experiments, in which researchers were able to convince average American citizens to knowingly torture each other for almost no reason. I am alarmed, you are now equating cheating under the right circumstances, to planned and intentional thieving under business as usual. Circumstances are circumstance, whether we're talking about business or school. In this particular circumstance, you have Path participating in a market where "the police" Apple simply allows this behavior to go on. And where there's tremendous social proof, because everybody else is doing it. And where there is tremendous groupthink, because the only people they consulted with were themselves. And where there was tremendous incentive, because they want their company to be successful. And where they can attempt to rationalize their decision by saying, "Well we won't use the data for anything bad" without any oversight. All the ducks are in a row. It's just the type of perfectly disastrous environment that could entice even the most noble of people to make bad decisions. irresponsible, irresponsible? What shit are you smoking chief? I have zero responsibility for their actions, or the pubic outrage against it, or my own reaction to crap. Let them rot in hell for all I care. It's simple: Either you care more about verbally abusing people who behave poorly, or you care more about preventing poor behavior in the future. If you claim to belong to the former group then fine, keep doing what your'e doing. But it never fixed anything in the past, and it won't do so in the future. But if we want to bring about real change, then we're going to have to concentrate on the immoral systems that allow and incentivize bad behavior.
  - yeggeyeggeyegge 15y ago
    >You're oversimplifying human behavior The facts in this case are simple. The judgement is clear. You seem to be justifying their actions. There is no moral justification. >type of perfectly disastrous environment that could entice even the most noble of people to make bad decisions see, because of this incident we can now clearly tell which companies are noble and which were pretending to be so. "ducks in a row" is not a moral argument. >Either you care more about verbally abusing people who behave poorly, or you care more about preventing poor behavior in the future I am sorry, it is not an either-or, and not the way you put it too. You admonish people for __bad__ behaviour because you care about preventing it in the future.

by csallen 15y ago

yeggeyeggeyegge 15y ago

>The ability to decide whether or not a course of action is ethical is greatly affected by what your competitors are doing, groupthink, incentives, time pressures, etc. No, its not. You do not kill a person over any of these. You do not kill someones trust in you over any of these. >I cannot be satisfied with the run-of-the-mill, "They did it because they're evil and untrustworthy" response. Then how about that they are shitty crappy company who are unconcerned about ethical matters of things and more concerned about what they can get away with. You know that they must have spent considerable time and effort to enable their app and service to steal all Contact data in the first place, right? >I think simply dismissing them as untrustworthy people is an irresponsible and short-sighted reaction. Human beings are more complex than that. irresponsible, irresponsible? What shit are you smoking chief? I have zero responsibility for their actions, or the pubic outrage against it, or my own reaction to crap. Let them rot in hell for all I care. >convince almost any student to cheat. That's the nature of humans. I am alarmed, you are now equating cheating under the right circumstances, to planned and intentional thieving under business as usual. >I highly recommend reading up on basic human psychology and I highly recommend some common sense.

csallen 15y ago
No, its not. You do not kill a person over any of these... they are shitty crappy company who are unconcerned about ethical matters of things You're oversimplifying human behavior. It's not as simple as "bad people do bad things." There are COUNTLESS examples in which large groups of decent people have acted in horrifying, deplorable ways. And our psychologists know enough to reproduce this type of behavior in a lab. Read about the Milgram experiments, in which researchers were able to convince average American citizens to knowingly torture each other for almost no reason. I am alarmed, you are now equating cheating under the right circumstances, to planned and intentional thieving under business as usual. Circumstances are circumstance, whether we're talking about business or school. In this particular circumstance, you have Path participating in a market where "the police" Apple simply allows this behavior to go on. And where there's tremendous social proof, because everybody else is doing it. And where there is tremendous groupthink, because the only people they consulted with were themselves. And where there was tremendous incentive, because they want their company to be successful. And where they can attempt to rationalize their decision by saying, "Well we won't use the data for anything bad" without any oversight. All the ducks are in a row. It's just the type of perfectly disastrous environment that could entice even the most noble of people to make bad decisions. irresponsible, irresponsible? What shit are you smoking chief? I have zero responsibility for their actions, or the pubic outrage against it, or my own reaction to crap. Let them rot in hell for all I care. It's simple: Either you care more about verbally abusing people who behave poorly, or you care more about preventing poor behavior in the future. If you claim to belong to the former group then fine, keep doing what your'e doing. But it never fixed anything in the past, and it won't do so in the future. But if we want to bring about real change, then we're going to have to concentrate on the immoral systems that allow and incentivize bad behavior.
- yeggeyeggeyegge 15y ago
  >You're oversimplifying human behavior The facts in this case are simple. The judgement is clear. You seem to be justifying their actions. There is no moral justification. >type of perfectly disastrous environment that could entice even the most noble of people to make bad decisions see, because of this incident we can now clearly tell which companies are noble and which were pretending to be so. "ducks in a row" is not a moral argument. >Either you care more about verbally abusing people who behave poorly, or you care more about preventing poor behavior in the future I am sorry, it is not an either-or, and not the way you put it too. You admonish people for __bad__ behaviour because you care about preventing it in the future.