3 ms·

That's a tricky question and the heart of the problem with it is that human beings are very good at rationalization. > Would you sign up to hack python for a s

That's a tricky question and the heart of the problem with it is that human beings are very good at rationalization. > Would you sign up to hack python for a site that revolutionizes international arms transactions? Yes, I want to help those innocent rebels overthrow that cruel dictator by giving them a means to protect themselves. > Would you design UX for a next-generation pay-day-loan start-up? Yes, what may seem like an extraordinary fee is actually justified by the risk, and many of their customers truly need the service provided. They have no other means. I face this kind of rationalization in my own job. I'm a director at the International Assoc. of Privacy Professionals. My membership, as you can imagine, is very sensitive to what we do with the personal data we collect. So when the marketing guy asks if he can slice and dice the membership data to do some targeting marketing, I have to assess whether the data he is using was collected with proper permission for that use. When we collect data it is with the mission of supporting the privacy profession and should only be used for that purpose or to enhance the value the member receives from us. Now, the marketing guy is a sharp fellow and, as such, he will rationalize that it is to the members' benefit that we accurately execute his plan. He will make a sensible case every single time, almost regardless of the situation. It is what humans are really good at.

playeren 15y ago
I totally agree that post-hoc rationalization is rife within any corporate (even social) environment. I even suspect it is an inherent part of our every-day decision process. We make a decision based on emotion/primal drive and then instantly come up with a rationalization, which we then remember as being the reason for our decision. But how do you argue against an - in your view - immoral/unethical decision which is presented with a far more eloquent and verbose supporting rationalization than you're able to counter? Does it come to who is the most adept at debating?
- jnorthrop 15y ago
  I'm afraid I'm going to give you a non-answer to what is a very good question, but have you ever watched a political debate? Who wins -- your guy of course! He trounces the other guy. Yet those who like the other guy will feel the opposite and no amount of eloquence is going to move that opinion. Back to the original question: The bottom line is that everyone has an ethical and moral line that they aren't willing to cross, but that line moves all of the time. When you don't need to cross that line, it is firm. If an opportunity comes up that is on the wrong side of the line but you really need it, your line moves. That is human nature.
  - playeren 15y ago
    > When you don't need to cross that line, it is firm. If an opportunity comes up that is on the wrong side of the line but you really need it, your line moves. That is human nature. Very insightful in my opinion.

playeren 15y ago

I totally agree that post-hoc rationalization is rife within any corporate (even social) environment. I even suspect it is an inherent part of our every-day decision process. We make a decision based on emotion/primal drive and then instantly come up with a rationalization, which we then remember as being the reason for our decision. But how do you argue against an - in your view - immoral/unethical decision which is presented with a far more eloquent and verbose supporting rationalization than you're able to counter? Does it come to who is the most adept at debating?

jnorthrop 15y ago
I'm afraid I'm going to give you a non-answer to what is a very good question, but have you ever watched a political debate? Who wins -- your guy of course! He trounces the other guy. Yet those who like the other guy will feel the opposite and no amount of eloquence is going to move that opinion. Back to the original question: The bottom line is that everyone has an ethical and moral line that they aren't willing to cross, but that line moves all of the time. When you don't need to cross that line, it is firm. If an opportunity comes up that is on the wrong side of the line but you really need it, your line moves. That is human nature.
- playeren 15y ago
  > When you don't need to cross that line, it is firm. If an opportunity comes up that is on the wrong side of the line but you really need it, your line moves. That is human nature. Very insightful in my opinion.