3 ms·

Related, started realizing that "being a principled person" doesn't really mean "having (stated) principles", it means belief that you can (and should) have pri

Related, started realizing that "being a principled person" doesn't really mean "having (stated) principles", it means belief that you can (and should) have principles that you're trying to apply consistently and continuously. Lots of people have principles. Not so many people are principled.

JohnFen 3y ago
Your actual principles are demonstrated by how you act when nobody is looking.
smcin 3y ago
Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? Anyway the UK Fujitsu/Postmaster scandal is about a huge chain of dishonest human behavior, not bugs in software.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? then you're not a principled person, that's why actions speak louder than words.
  - smcin 3y ago
    But noone external to the contents of their head can know that. It's unknowable to all the rest of us. (The only thing the rest of us can tell is they might be confused, incoherent, have a weak, inconsistent or just idiosyncratic set of principles, etc.) See the author interview of Robert Greene on "Exploring Human Nature" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78
- kelnos 3y ago
  Being principled would preclude you from changing those principles to excuse your own bad behavior. Put another way, if you were to do this, then you weren't really principled in the first place, were you? And it's not like people don't say out loud that they are a certain way, and then act against that. There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated.
  - smcin 3y ago
    But that wouldn't be proveable, if they never stated their principles. Almost anyone could then claim to be principled if they didn't state what principles, unless we knew the innermost contents of their mind; or unless their behavior was grossly self-contradictory (rather than nuanced, or deniable). > There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated. Sure there is: we can see the audit trail of precisely what principle they claimed to adhere to and, when. For example in this case the defence for Paula Vennells (and other key figures) is going to be very interesting. What if Vennells blames expert advice, or the prosecutors, or Fujitsu?

JohnFen 3y ago

Your actual principles are demonstrated by how you act when nobody is looking.

smcin 3y ago

Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? Anyway the UK Fujitsu/Postmaster scandal is about a huge chain of dishonest human behavior, not bugs in software.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> Perhaps, but if they're unstated, what prevents you revising your principles after the fact, to fit your actions? then you're not a principled person, that's why actions speak louder than words.
- smcin 3y ago
  But noone external to the contents of their head can know that. It's unknowable to all the rest of us. (The only thing the rest of us can tell is they might be confused, incoherent, have a weak, inconsistent or just idiosyncratic set of principles, etc.) See the author interview of Robert Greene on "Exploring Human Nature" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tGC401j78
kelnos 3y ago
Being principled would preclude you from changing those principles to excuse your own bad behavior. Put another way, if you were to do this, then you weren't really principled in the first place, were you? And it's not like people don't say out loud that they are a certain way, and then act against that. There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated.
- smcin 3y ago
  But that wouldn't be proveable, if they never stated their principles. Almost anyone could then claim to be principled if they didn't state what principles, unless we knew the innermost contents of their mind; or unless their behavior was grossly self-contradictory (rather than nuanced, or deniable). > There's no magic in principles being explicitly stated. Sure there is: we can see the audit trail of precisely what principle they claimed to adhere to and, when. For example in this case the defence for Paula Vennells (and other key figures) is going to be very interesting. What if Vennells blames expert advice, or the prosecutors, or Fujitsu?