4 ms·

Fundamentally ethics are a luxury. I might have some if I ever become rich and financially independent of the rest of society, but until that point I will not h

Fundamentally ethics are a luxury. I might have some if I ever become rich and financially independent of the rest of society, but until that point I will not have any. And even then, it comes after other needs like comfort and achieving my own goals. I won't sacrifice much of anything for ethics.

bigbacaloa 3y ago
[dead]
jacquesm 3y ago
Campguard an option for very good comp? Or would that be a bridge too far?
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I suspect you might have a different definition of ethics. I doubt many people would, for instance, murder for comfort or achieving their goals.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  Murder is illegal and has significant negative personal consequences. But lots of things are not illegal and thus can be done with non-social risk.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Most unethical behaviors (regardless of being illegal or legal) have significant personal consequences. However, most unethical things are actually also illegal, falling under "fraud", "willful neglect", etc. There's a gray area, usually referred to as "dark patterns" that aren't yet proven to be illegal, but likely are, if the regulators ever had the free time to care. But yeah. Unethical people might find they have a hard time actually getting past a certain point in relationships (business or friendly), though sometimes it's good to have a few shrewd people in your back pocket to call on.
- NotMichaelBay 3y ago
  Let's hope so, otherwise it looks like someone is... sunglasses Murder for FIRE
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > doubt many people would, for instance, murder for comfort Individually, no. But we have a remarkable ability to adapt group ethical systems when resource needs demand it. The conflict arises when these adaptations occur in too-small a group, e.g. at the company level within a country, or a country level within an integrated continent.
n4r9 3y ago
Would you press a button that puts a million poor people each in $10k debt and gives you $1m?
- GrinningFool 3y ago
  Does the answer change if it's a million rich people?
  - MakeThemMoney 3y ago
    Mine does
  - theultdev 3y ago
    yes, it turns from a no to a hard no. that's destroying a lot to gain a little. many of those "rich" people could be supporting many other "poor" people via jobs that you just wiped out for a small personal gain.
    - chartpath 3y ago
      $10k is nothing for rich people. Just putting them in debt for it doesn't mean nothing of value was provided. The reverse would be true where poor people could be ruined, unless the value provided is worth significantly more than the debt created, which seems doubtful.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        $10k in debt would mean wiping out their net worth so they have more debt than assets. Not just $10k payment. To be in $10k debt, it means you have more debt than assets. Either way, wealth distribution is wrong. Stealing is stealing.
        chartpath 3y ago
        How is wealth distribution wrong? It sounds like you are arguing in favour of inequality.
skygazer 3y ago
Ironically, the poor are typically more ethical than the wealthy in research. You may be among the ~.5% of humans unconcerned with harming others, regardless of wealth level.
- bumby 3y ago
  There seems to be quite a bit of evidence of the opposite, or at least that "high-status" people are equally or more ethical. Some of the misperception seems to be explained by society holding high-status individuals to a higher ethical standard and more attention when they deviate from the norm.
  - skygazer 3y ago
    That’s interesting. Of course we can’t 1:1 equate wealth with high-status, but I guess there’s often significant overlap.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    The poster wrote that research shows that poorer people are typically (or in general) more ethical than richer and your reply is that there is evidence to the contrary without any evidence just a hand waving argument. That doesn't show anything. You can indeed question the research of less ethical behaviour by richer people however you need to bring some evidence. This [1] article for example talks about a study which didn't replicate the behaviour. It's actually a well balanced discussion of the overall evidence. [1] https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/are_rich_people_really_less_ethical https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/are_rich_peopl...
    - bumby 3y ago
      What was the hand-waving? A better approach is just to be intellectually curious and ask. Besides, snarkiness is against the HN guidelines. This article [1] has a lot of references that support that claim, and it's a higher quality of rigor than a magazine article. FWIW, I'm not saying the original claim was wrong, just that we should be cautioned against strong claims when there is mixed evidence at best. Likewise, I would caution against extrapolating too much from studies that use cars as a proxy for wealth. Car model != socio-economic status for a variety of reasons. I'd argue that original (and replicated) study from your link is pretty flawed to begin with. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42204-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42204-z
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Depends, ethics are part of having integrity. And people with integrity can go a long way over time, since integrity is part of being reliable, And reliable people keep getting invited back. It's the difference between a short term and a long term view.
bumby 3y ago
Ethics is really just scaffolding to explain how people interact. This reads as a rationalization for the ends justify the means, which might be considered a branch of consequentialist ethics.
- 0xbadcafebee 3y ago
  It sounds to me like they were describing rational egoism / objectivism. Rand described the ethics of objectivism as: "Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self- interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Ethics is a luxury. The luxury of not having to hire armed guards every time I go to the ATM. The luxury of not having to test my groceries to make sure they aren't going to poison me. The luxury of being able to trust the financial statements of my bank, or my broker. It's a luxury to live in a society where most people have ethics. I really enjoy having that luxury; I suspect you do, too. So if you want to not have them yourself until you get ahead of everyone else, that sounds kind of like a sociopath.
- idlejitter 3y ago
  Ethics is what's popular according to influencers. Enjoy this double entendre.
0xbadcafebee 3y ago
You just described your own system of ethics. I think you're confusing the concept of ethics with a particular construction of ethics
s5300 3y ago
[dead]
neilv 3y ago
That's a very hostile mindset to have, but at least you admitted it, which is a bit better than the people who think the same way but pretend otherwise.
- kgwxd 3y ago
  I don't know that it's a bit better. I'd much rather work with someone I know will be unethical, given the chance they won't get caught. They're easy enough to spot. I can strategize around the getting caught part. Someone that wears lack of ethics as a badge of honor, I'd rather just never work with.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Rich people have the resources to safety burn bridges, make enemies and get themselves into trouble they can dig themselves out of with lawyers, bribes, etc. If you're poor, then for your own sake it is even more important to behave ethically, in a way that makes other people inclined to like you.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  The only reward from trying to be likeable is getting your own box to fit into. Being likeable often requires masking and being the fakest, bubbliest version of yourself. Not what I'd call a reliable way to enjoy life.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    You don't have to be phony, you just have to not be unethical and screw over the people you meet, turning your acquaintances into enemies. If you behave like a normal reasonable moral person, you will make friends and form a social safety net that can support you when you need help. Poor people who behave unethically are truly stupid. Any short-term gain you might get from screwing people is going to come back to bite you before long.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      The 'normal, moral person' is load-bearing in this argument. It's a wild card used to filter based on superficial preferences. It can be wildly inconsistent, even within its own framework. Normies simply will never understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of normie social habits. They're more insular than you're indicating.
akomtu 3y ago
> independent of the rest of society That's the seed of evil: the idea of isolated existence. The strong just pull it out. The weak passively watch how it grows and wait until it's rotten down in envy, experiencing all sorts of sufferings on the way there.

bigbacaloa 3y ago

[dead]

jacquesm 3y ago

Campguard an option for very good comp? Or would that be a bridge too far?

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

I suspect you might have a different definition of ethics. I doubt many people would, for instance, murder for comfort or achieving their goals.

throwawaysleep 3y ago
Murder is illegal and has significant negative personal consequences. But lots of things are not illegal and thus can be done with non-social risk.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Most unethical behaviors (regardless of being illegal or legal) have significant personal consequences. However, most unethical things are actually also illegal, falling under "fraud", "willful neglect", etc. There's a gray area, usually referred to as "dark patterns" that aren't yet proven to be illegal, but likely are, if the regulators ever had the free time to care. But yeah. Unethical people might find they have a hard time actually getting past a certain point in relationships (business or friendly), though sometimes it's good to have a few shrewd people in your back pocket to call on.
NotMichaelBay 3y ago
Let's hope so, otherwise it looks like someone is... sunglasses Murder for FIRE
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> doubt many people would, for instance, murder for comfort Individually, no. But we have a remarkable ability to adapt group ethical systems when resource needs demand it. The conflict arises when these adaptations occur in too-small a group, e.g. at the company level within a country, or a country level within an integrated continent.

n4r9 3y ago

Would you press a button that puts a million poor people each in $10k debt and gives you $1m?

GrinningFool 3y ago
Does the answer change if it's a million rich people?
- MakeThemMoney 3y ago
  Mine does
- theultdev 3y ago
  yes, it turns from a no to a hard no. that's destroying a lot to gain a little. many of those "rich" people could be supporting many other "poor" people via jobs that you just wiped out for a small personal gain.
  - chartpath 3y ago
    $10k is nothing for rich people. Just putting them in debt for it doesn't mean nothing of value was provided. The reverse would be true where poor people could be ruined, unless the value provided is worth significantly more than the debt created, which seems doubtful.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      $10k in debt would mean wiping out their net worth so they have more debt than assets. Not just $10k payment. To be in $10k debt, it means you have more debt than assets. Either way, wealth distribution is wrong. Stealing is stealing.
      - chartpath 3y ago
        How is wealth distribution wrong? It sounds like you are arguing in favour of inequality.

skygazer 3y ago

Ironically, the poor are typically more ethical than the wealthy in research. You may be among the ~.5% of humans unconcerned with harming others, regardless of wealth level.

bumby 3y ago
There seems to be quite a bit of evidence of the opposite, or at least that "high-status" people are equally or more ethical. Some of the misperception seems to be explained by society holding high-status individuals to a higher ethical standard and more attention when they deviate from the norm.
- skygazer 3y ago
  That’s interesting. Of course we can’t 1:1 equate wealth with high-status, but I guess there’s often significant overlap.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  The poster wrote that research shows that poorer people are typically (or in general) more ethical than richer and your reply is that there is evidence to the contrary without any evidence just a hand waving argument. That doesn't show anything. You can indeed question the research of less ethical behaviour by richer people however you need to bring some evidence. This [1] article for example talks about a study which didn't replicate the behaviour. It's actually a well balanced discussion of the overall evidence. [1] https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/are_rich_people_really_less_ethical https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/are_rich_peopl...
  - bumby 3y ago
    What was the hand-waving? A better approach is just to be intellectually curious and ask. Besides, snarkiness is against the HN guidelines. This article [1] has a lot of references that support that claim, and it's a higher quality of rigor than a magazine article. FWIW, I'm not saying the original claim was wrong, just that we should be cautioned against strong claims when there is mixed evidence at best. Likewise, I would caution against extrapolating too much from studies that use cars as a proxy for wealth. Car model != socio-economic status for a variety of reasons. I'd argue that original (and replicated) study from your link is pretty flawed to begin with. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42204-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42204-z

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

Depends, ethics are part of having integrity. And people with integrity can go a long way over time, since integrity is part of being reliable, And reliable people keep getting invited back. It's the difference between a short term and a long term view.

bumby 3y ago

Ethics is really just scaffolding to explain how people interact. This reads as a rationalization for the ends justify the means, which might be considered a branch of consequentialist ethics.

0xbadcafebee 3y ago
It sounds to me like they were describing rational egoism / objectivism. Rand described the ethics of objectivism as: "Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self- interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Ethics is a luxury. The luxury of not having to hire armed guards every time I go to the ATM. The luxury of not having to test my groceries to make sure they aren't going to poison me. The luxury of being able to trust the financial statements of my bank, or my broker. It's a luxury to live in a society where most people have ethics. I really enjoy having that luxury; I suspect you do, too. So if you want to not have them yourself until you get ahead of everyone else, that sounds kind of like a sociopath.

idlejitter 3y ago
Ethics is what's popular according to influencers. Enjoy this double entendre.

0xbadcafebee 3y ago

You just described your own system of ethics. I think you're confusing the concept of ethics with a particular construction of ethics

s5300 3y ago

[dead]

neilv 3y ago

That's a very hostile mindset to have, but at least you admitted it, which is a bit better than the people who think the same way but pretend otherwise.

kgwxd 3y ago
I don't know that it's a bit better. I'd much rather work with someone I know will be unethical, given the chance they won't get caught. They're easy enough to spot. I can strategize around the getting caught part. Someone that wears lack of ethics as a badge of honor, I'd rather just never work with.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Rich people have the resources to safety burn bridges, make enemies and get themselves into trouble they can dig themselves out of with lawyers, bribes, etc. If you're poor, then for your own sake it is even more important to behave ethically, in a way that makes other people inclined to like you.

zlg_codes 3y ago
The only reward from trying to be likeable is getting your own box to fit into. Being likeable often requires masking and being the fakest, bubbliest version of yourself. Not what I'd call a reliable way to enjoy life.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  You don't have to be phony, you just have to not be unethical and screw over the people you meet, turning your acquaintances into enemies. If you behave like a normal reasonable moral person, you will make friends and form a social safety net that can support you when you need help. Poor people who behave unethically are truly stupid. Any short-term gain you might get from screwing people is going to come back to bite you before long.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    The 'normal, moral person' is load-bearing in this argument. It's a wild card used to filter based on superficial preferences. It can be wildly inconsistent, even within its own framework. Normies simply will never understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of normie social habits. They're more insular than you're indicating.

akomtu 3y ago

> independent of the rest of society That's the seed of evil: the idea of isolated existence. The strong just pull it out. The weak passively watch how it grows and wait until it's rotten down in envy, experiencing all sorts of sufferings on the way there.