4 ms·
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 dec
by 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 agoI'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.