3 ms·
Not to remove blame where blame is due, but in both cases there are incentive and regulatory problems. If you give people problems whereby they feel that they c
by Jd 14y ago
Not to remove blame where blame is due, but in both cases there are incentive and regulatory problems. If you give people problems whereby they feel that they cannot do well without cheating (i.e. when everyone else is cheating), then cheating becomes institutionalized. Thus, to be cheating in a class where 99% of the students are cheating is to be somewhat less culpable than to be among the students cheating when only 1% of the students are cheating.
That is to say, to have a situation when cheating becomes the norm implies a much larger institutional and cultural collapse in which the larger framework (and not simply the cheating individuals) demands investigation.
What are the larger trends here?
Well, the first might simply be the idea that greed is okay. In this case, we can witness the following transformation in American values fairly clearly.
Phase 1 (religious): Greed is bad, we do things for the sake of a heavenly kingdom only. We are only temporary stewards of the wealth we have.
Phase 2 (agnostic): Greed may be a necessary part of evolution and competition for limited resources, but we need to limit it and make it a long term sort of greed.
Phase 3 (hedonist): My identity is defined by how much money I have, and I don't care how I get it.
In other words, there is long-term value erosion. This is not to say that one's values necessarily have to be religious-Christian in derivation, but in the American context this was overwhelmingly the case and this erosion has basically given way to live in the moment materialism.
The practical consequences is that many people involved in business, and this is most clear in the financial sector which has no ostensible tie to any product whatsoever and attracts people who care only about money, not only seek money, but seek to destroy any barriers that keep them from getting as much money as possible. In the US this has meant saturation of elite universities (pulling an increasing proportion of the best and brightest into the financial sector), buying out of the major political parties, shutting out the minor political parties, and removing regulatory functions (i.e. the SEC). Additionally, there is the desire to weaken the electorate by importing cheap labor from other countries that will be liable to manipulation via mass media, decreasing the likelihood that any independent party will achieve critical mass.
Because this is a long-term institutional problem there is no obvious solution, except to continue with the values that have not entirely been eroded (i.e. honesty) and to encourage others who do their function (i.e. continue working in the public sector and enforcing existing regulation). Creating new services and teams of people that are doing a good job simply for the sake of doing a good job is never a bad idea either -- although it is always easy to get sucked into the mentality of "greed is good."
- Uchikoma 14y ago"Thus, to be cheating in a class where 99% of the students are cheating is to be somewhat less culpable than to be among the students cheating when only 1% of the students are cheating." No.
- kajecounterhack 14y agoI'm pretty sure I agree with you but comments like these could be more verbose. It's not helpful to simply disagree without explanation. One word responses are just dogmatic.
- Jd 14y agoThanks. I personally believe in right and wrong, but also in degrees of right and wrong. Doing the right thing in a situation where everyone else is doing the wrong thing is more difficult. Doing the right thing when everyone is doing the right thing is easy. Thus, you don't really know your values or the depth of your values until you are placed in a situation where it is difficult to carry them out. Here, for "culpability" I mean simply that I believe that the power to actualize the values of each individual differs, and that those who are able to actualize their values even in very difficult situations is worth more and to be praised more than those who are unable to and go with the flow. This is to say that simply saying you have certain values means nothing. You have to act on those values and, because acting on those values can be difficult, I have sympathy for those who fail to -- even as I praise those who do.
- 001sky 14y agoYour analysis is not wrong. The UCI/The Tour DeFrance, Lance Armstrong were just as bad. You highlight lots of good issues (including - other people making money off it regardless of who wins, the act of not doping was arguably dangerous, given the exertion levels of the pack, etc). The conclusion of this section is fine I'd also agree with (It is true). But ultimately you fail to provide a framework for analysis. You conclude This is to say that simply saying you have certain values means nothing If you were a CEO of UCI and the Board asked you: 'How would you "fix" the pervasive problem' would your really come back debating "doping" and "problem"? Or would your come back with something more like: Here is my Answer X,Y,Z. While itsn't perfect, we've identified things that are clearly wrong that we can fix. First, we need to draw lines between doping and legitimate theraphy. Second, we need to have the science to fairly test between the Two. Third, while maintaining privacy and fairness, the athletes and the teams will need to co-operate with the [XYZ] league to make sure it doesn't damage the credibility of the competition and abuse our position of trust amongs the fans....etc. I'd actually be interested to hear your views on that. Your analysis pointed out the analogy to the Armstrong case (was not something I thought of before hand, but it fits perfectly). But when I see a huge, intelligent analysis thrown up then ends the way yours does, it seems like a waste of all the energy that you put into writing it. (Unless you are a lawyer -- with a point to defend =D)