3 ms·

> Many people, I hazard to guess most, base their behavior on some sort of pile of moral ideas and/or general bonhomie How do you then explain every company ou

> Many people, I hazard to guess most, base their behavior on some sort of pile of moral ideas and/or general bonhomie How do you then explain every company out there being hostile to their customers and constantly pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable, or even things like wage theft which is surprisingly common? Or is there a double-standard here, where individuals are supposed to act in good faith but companies are not just allowed to be assholes, but rewarded for doing so by the market and lack of adequate law enforcement actions? It's true that morality and good-faith behavior has mostly kept things working well, but it's clear that morals and good faith alone isn't good enough since there are entities that abuse the system so laws and enforcement should be there. If it's not, then I'm not going to be particularly angry about the little guys acting antisocially when the entire economic system is encouraging & rewarding it. Look at it from an IT security perspective: it's great that most users are acting in good faith and are not trying to exploit your system, but you still need to plan for the worst and make sure your system can survive hostile encounters. The same should apply to our legal system.

Dylan16807 2y ago
> How do you then explain Companies are sociopathic and we haven't figured out a good way to deal with this. > you still need to plan for the worst and make sure your system can survive hostile encounters Sure, but that's pretty different from saying it "just makes sense" to be a hostile actor.
- Nextgrid 2y ago
  > sociopathic and we haven't figured out a good way to deal with this Great, so let's start dealing with this rather than continuing the double-standard where the big guys are allowed & encouraged to behave antisocially while the little guys are shamed for it. Until this is addressed, I'm not particularly surprised to see the little guys start acting anti-socially too; it makes perfect sense in the system of incentives we currently live in. Some people are lucky enough to survive while acting morally, but I don't think it's fair to be angry at those who don't instead of addressing the systemic problem that encourages antisocial behavior, both individual & corporate.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    There have always been sociopaths, and it hasn't caused everyone to act like sociopaths. So that right there breaks the "perfect sense" claim.
nathan_compton 2y ago
The design of companies (especially limited liability companies, but many other aspects as well) diffuses the moral/aesthetic implications of decision making while concentrating the fiduciary implications, thus leading to behavioral patterns which are pretty inhuman. I'm not arguing that there are not some bad actors - this is clearly and obviously true. I think the legal system should act in whatever way optimizes its goals (presumably, the flourishing of living things or something) and I tend to think the punitive impulse typically doesn't do that. It's main appeal is that it feels good to imagine someone getting punished.
- Nextgrid 2y ago
  > I tend to think the punitive impulse typically doesn't do that Well when it comes to companies the punishment and deterrent should be monetary damages that will effectively make the undesirable behavior unprofitable and thus discourage it in the future. But we're not doing that, setting the standard that antisocial behavior is acceptable (and rewarded by the market by being more profitable than acting honestly), thus it is no surprise that the little guys have a go at it (and guess what, since we're not punishing that either, there is no downside to doing it repeatedly).
TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Look at it from an IT security perspective: it's great that most users are acting in good faith and are not trying to exploit your system, but you still need to plan for the worst and make sure your system can survive hostile encounters. I think this is exactly the opposite of the right perspective for law and ethics. Society runs on trust, the more trust the better. ITSec runs best on zero trust. Applying the latter to the former lead to absurdities like "code is law" "smart" contracts.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> How do you then explain Companies are sociopathic and we haven't figured out a good way to deal with this. > you still need to plan for the worst and make sure your system can survive hostile encounters Sure, but that's pretty different from saying it "just makes sense" to be a hostile actor.

Nextgrid 2y ago
> sociopathic and we haven't figured out a good way to deal with this Great, so let's start dealing with this rather than continuing the double-standard where the big guys are allowed & encouraged to behave antisocially while the little guys are shamed for it. Until this is addressed, I'm not particularly surprised to see the little guys start acting anti-socially too; it makes perfect sense in the system of incentives we currently live in. Some people are lucky enough to survive while acting morally, but I don't think it's fair to be angry at those who don't instead of addressing the systemic problem that encourages antisocial behavior, both individual & corporate.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  There have always been sociopaths, and it hasn't caused everyone to act like sociopaths. So that right there breaks the "perfect sense" claim.

nathan_compton 2y ago

The design of companies (especially limited liability companies, but many other aspects as well) diffuses the moral/aesthetic implications of decision making while concentrating the fiduciary implications, thus leading to behavioral patterns which are pretty inhuman. I'm not arguing that there are not some bad actors - this is clearly and obviously true. I think the legal system should act in whatever way optimizes its goals (presumably, the flourishing of living things or something) and I tend to think the punitive impulse typically doesn't do that. It's main appeal is that it feels good to imagine someone getting punished.

Nextgrid 2y ago
> I tend to think the punitive impulse typically doesn't do that Well when it comes to companies the punishment and deterrent should be monetary damages that will effectively make the undesirable behavior unprofitable and thus discourage it in the future. But we're not doing that, setting the standard that antisocial behavior is acceptable (and rewarded by the market by being more profitable than acting honestly), thus it is no surprise that the little guys have a go at it (and guess what, since we're not punishing that either, there is no downside to doing it repeatedly).

TeMPOraL 2y ago

> Look at it from an IT security perspective: it's great that most users are acting in good faith and are not trying to exploit your system, but you still need to plan for the worst and make sure your system can survive hostile encounters. I think this is exactly the opposite of the right perspective for law and ethics. Society runs on trust, the more trust the better. ITSec runs best on zero trust. Applying the latter to the former lead to absurdities like "code is law" "smart" contracts.