4 ms·

"a natural consequence of society......" You could use this justification to rationalize any sort of unethical behavior you like. Embezzlement is a natural con

"a natural consequence of society......" You could use this justification to rationalize any sort of unethical behavior you like. Embezzlement is a natural consequence of society putting a huge value on owning a Benz and other dullard measures of achievement! That is to say, I disagree wholeheartedly.

littletimmy 12y ago
There is a world of difference between the importance of a GPA and the importance of a Benz. Low GPA means no good job straight out of college (because apparently you need a 3.5+ from an ivy league school to model in excel) means in a lot of cases lesser income for the rest of your life. No Benz means you can drive a Toyota. Big whoop.
- chucksmash 12y ago
  Why do you think you are automatically entitled to a good job straight out of college? Your reply vis-a-vis a Mercedes vs lifetime earnings seems to imply that you are willing to sell your integrity for some value x: $(Benz - Toyota) < x <= ~$2,000,000 (spread out over a lifetime). I'm a bit incredulous that your reply was basically that the only reason you would act ethically in my hypothetical situation was because you required a higher bribe.
  - littletimmy 12y ago
    I don't think one is entitled to a good job straight out of college. I do, however, think that in a marketplace saturated by unfairness (berkowitz's dad is a partner let's hire him) and bullshit (jump through these hoops to make us like you), one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests.
    - smcgivern 12y ago
      Would you also say that lying on your resume, and in interviews, is a natural consequence of society?
    - john_b 12y ago
      > "one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests" This is a classic mentality of victimization. By focusing on the theoretical harm that been done to the extent of all other considerations, you can justify anything. It's a dangerous mentality that has resulted in many evils throughout history. Hell, this is the same justification ISIS originally used when recruiting Sunnis who were tired of corruption and discrimination at the hands of the Shia Iraqi government, only with the economic context replaced by a political one. A more mature ethical position would recognize that in some environments, while evil has been done which harms or disadvantages you, the strategy of employing "any and all effort necessary to further one's interests" is likely what gave the advantage to those who have allegedly disadvantaged you. If you successfully follow through with this attitude you'll likely perpetuate a cycle. If you are going to cheat, break rules, or whatever you should do so because those rules or prohibitions have little or no moral and social value in the context in which they exist. If GPA is just a meaningless filter enabling incompetent HR departments at BigCo to trim down their resume pile, then sure, game the system to your advantage. But don't draw the conclusion that you are morally entitled to do whatever it takes to promote your own interests. That path leads to psychopathy.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  > No Benz means you can drive a Toyota. Big whoop. It can be much easier to get a job, and achieve other things, if you have the proper toys to signal your social status with.
- defen 12y ago
  > because apparently you need a 3.5+ from an ivy league school to model in excel It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence.
  - hurin 12y ago
    >> It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. > Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence. I'm going to argue the opposing part for a bit here: So OP's response should be (something along these lines): HA, there you admit it's putting up with bullshit! But if it's bullshit what's wrong with cheating on it as long as I get to where I want (within the system)! Rather I would suggest the premise that there is an ethical guideline to behaviour should rest, on our ability to validate the consequences of this behaviour. So in the embezzlement behaviour clearly there is a deceived party and someone suffers. In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice? My take on it is that least in the US there is an overtly-strong caveat for this kind of thing (i.e. even copying assignments), while we are generally accepting of various other forms of deceit (i.e. sociopathy). That said in my personal experience standardized tests are a good deal better than attendance grades, participation grades, national honor society, club activities or whatever other bs people have to put up with in highschool.
    - cpwright 12y ago
      > In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice? The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hnnewguy 12y ago
>You could use this justification to rationalize any sort of unethical behavior you like. It isn't a justification; it's an explanation. Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement.
- chucksmash 12y ago
  If the statement was only given as a reason why cheating is prevalent nowadays it would be an explanation. To take the next step and use that explanation to rationalize one's own cheating makes it is a justification (or rationalization, whichever you prefer). GP certainly used it as his justification. > Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement. Noting that that relationship might exist is entirely different from saying "this relationship exists therefore I shall embezzle."
- kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago
  What if it's the other way around: Individual emphasis on material goods the whole society to appear as such?

littletimmy 12y ago

There is a world of difference between the importance of a GPA and the importance of a Benz. Low GPA means no good job straight out of college (because apparently you need a 3.5+ from an ivy league school to model in excel) means in a lot of cases lesser income for the rest of your life. No Benz means you can drive a Toyota. Big whoop.

chucksmash 12y ago
Why do you think you are automatically entitled to a good job straight out of college? Your reply vis-a-vis a Mercedes vs lifetime earnings seems to imply that you are willing to sell your integrity for some value x: $(Benz - Toyota) < x <= ~$2,000,000 (spread out over a lifetime). I'm a bit incredulous that your reply was basically that the only reason you would act ethically in my hypothetical situation was because you required a higher bribe.
- littletimmy 12y ago
  I don't think one is entitled to a good job straight out of college. I do, however, think that in a marketplace saturated by unfairness (berkowitz's dad is a partner let's hire him) and bullshit (jump through these hoops to make us like you), one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests.
  - smcgivern 12y ago
    Would you also say that lying on your resume, and in interviews, is a natural consequence of society?
  - john_b 12y ago
    > "one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests" This is a classic mentality of victimization. By focusing on the theoretical harm that been done to the extent of all other considerations, you can justify anything. It's a dangerous mentality that has resulted in many evils throughout history. Hell, this is the same justification ISIS originally used when recruiting Sunnis who were tired of corruption and discrimination at the hands of the Shia Iraqi government, only with the economic context replaced by a political one. A more mature ethical position would recognize that in some environments, while evil has been done which harms or disadvantages you, the strategy of employing "any and all effort necessary to further one's interests" is likely what gave the advantage to those who have allegedly disadvantaged you. If you successfully follow through with this attitude you'll likely perpetuate a cycle. If you are going to cheat, break rules, or whatever you should do so because those rules or prohibitions have little or no moral and social value in the context in which they exist. If GPA is just a meaningless filter enabling incompetent HR departments at BigCo to trim down their resume pile, then sure, game the system to your advantage. But don't draw the conclusion that you are morally entitled to do whatever it takes to promote your own interests. That path leads to psychopathy.
pavel_lishin 12y ago
> No Benz means you can drive a Toyota. Big whoop. It can be much easier to get a job, and achieve other things, if you have the proper toys to signal your social status with.
defen 12y ago
> because apparently you need a 3.5+ from an ivy league school to model in excel It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence.
- hurin 12y ago
  >> It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. > Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence. I'm going to argue the opposing part for a bit here: So OP's response should be (something along these lines): HA, there you admit it's putting up with bullshit! But if it's bullshit what's wrong with cheating on it as long as I get to where I want (within the system)! Rather I would suggest the premise that there is an ethical guideline to behaviour should rest, on our ability to validate the consequences of this behaviour. So in the embezzlement behaviour clearly there is a deceived party and someone suffers. In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice? My take on it is that least in the US there is an overtly-strong caveat for this kind of thing (i.e. even copying assignments), while we are generally accepting of various other forms of deceit (i.e. sociopathy). That said in my personal experience standardized tests are a good deal better than attendance grades, participation grades, national honor society, club activities or whatever other bs people have to put up with in highschool.
  - cpwright 12y ago
    > In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice? The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

hnnewguy 12y ago

>You could use this justification to rationalize any sort of unethical behavior you like. It isn't a justification; it's an explanation. Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement.

chucksmash 12y ago
If the statement was only given as a reason why cheating is prevalent nowadays it would be an explanation. To take the next step and use that explanation to rationalize one's own cheating makes it is a justification (or rationalization, whichever you prefer). GP certainly used it as his justification. > Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement. Noting that that relationship might exist is entirely different from saying "this relationship exists therefore I shall embezzle."
kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago
What if it's the other way around: Individual emphasis on material goods the whole society to appear as such?