undefined | Better HN

0 pointsconsteval1y ago0 comments

I'm not speaking to the point - I'm speaking to right and wrong.

If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away. Therefore, people should do that.

If that sounds wrong to you, then the initial assumption might not be correct. Maybe it's not so bad to buy the tube of toothpaste.

Constraining yourself to extremely hard and fast rules seems like a good idea on the surface. But it's all about incentives. I can easily make the company bleed much more money while being within their rules. So why even bother?

A touch of leniency and common sense goes a long way.

0 comments

s1artibartfast1y ago

>If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away.

That makes no sense, One does not imply the other

I have a business card with a limit of $5k for buying work materials. I might get forgiveness if the materials ended up being wasted. That doesn't mean it acceptable to use my business card to go to Disneyland, or that it is "Right" to use it for wasteful purchases.

Zero sympathy for thieves

constevalOP1y ago

People's supposed issue, and Meta's, is that this was not spent on food. We can fix that.

> Zero sympathy for thieves

I often find that those who process information in such absolute ways are typically simple-minded. I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice.

There are much better ways Meta should have gone through this. And, ultimately, I put the blame on them for coming up with an exploitable and naive policy.

s1artibartfast1y ago

Theft is a clear line and I wouldnt want to employ someone one who didnt respect.

I dont see how Meta has any moral obligation to prevent exploit. They should all have more such policies and monitor them to better weed out thieves.

>I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice.

Can you explain the moral justification for someone with a 400k salary to steal from their employer?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsconsteval1y ago0 comments

I'm not speaking to the point - I'm speaking to right and wrong.

If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away. Therefore, people should do that.

If that sounds wrong to you, then the initial assumption might not be correct. Maybe it's not so bad to buy the tube of toothpaste.

A touch of leniency and common sense goes a long way.

0 comments

s1artibartfast1y ago

>If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away.

That makes no sense, One does not imply the other

Zero sympathy for thieves

constevalOP1y ago

People's supposed issue, and Meta's, is that this was not spent on food. We can fix that.

> Zero sympathy for thieves

I often find that those who process information in such absolute ways are typically simple-minded. I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice.

There are much better ways Meta should have gone through this. And, ultimately, I put the blame on them for coming up with an exploitable and naive policy.

s1artibartfast1y ago

Theft is a clear line and I wouldnt want to employ someone one who didnt respect.

I dont see how Meta has any moral obligation to prevent exploit. They should all have more such policies and monitor them to better weed out thieves.

>I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice.

Can you explain the moral justification for someone with a 400k salary to steal from their employer?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse