We are more ethical than you'd think

Post #160,535 by ben_tilly 6/19/04 3:09:05 PM Reply	We are more ethical than you'd think I remember a study done in the mid-90's. (Unfortunately I read it in the NY Times, and so would have no chance of tracking it down again.) They "lost" a series of wallets in various large cities by dropping them in the street. Each included a driver's license and $100. They got virtually all of the wallets back, most of them with $100. A significant portion with letters saying things like, "You are lucky that I picked it up, most of the people around here would have taken the money." The researchers wrote back to those who sent in $100 explaining that it was an experiment and gave them $200. To the researcher's surprise, multiple people refused to be paid $200 for having done what they thought was right! The conclusion, while everyone "knows" that courtesy and kindness are lost, most of us, push comes to shove, won't wrongly take $100 even if it is literally lying in the street. There are, of course, exceptions... Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #160,552 by Ashton 6/19/04 6:10:50 PM Reply	Yes, I've had similar experiences.. still.. The experiment mentioned probably ought to be as compelling as my own random (and too few) stats. We all know people who 'would return things'; still the most visible [and clearly, recurrent] examples which cross all imaginary categories are.. what the people At Top, those 'managing' affairs Do. And instruct their minions to help-Do. Possibly our once ~visible 'ethical sense' has simply been overwhelmed by the sophistries of the legal group and the cooing insincerity / dissembling within virtually every AD we ever see. (Yess.. there is the occasional brilliant exception; I still remember fondly the Exxon? commercial of many moons back - showing a dinosaur-in-your-tank; a subtle + funny reminder {unintentional?} of the complexity and length of the natural "petroleum factory process" from which we are making only withdrawals.) Maybe the final insult, a classic Language Murder-in-1st degree - which all here can fully plumb is: Microsoft Trustworthy Computing So then.. I don't really know to what extent Muricans are in fact 'less trustworthy' today -?- But I do think I Know; that the airwaves are filled with counter-examples from Top to next door, and I see that I experience more 'subtle lies' in the course of the usual daily affairs from auto maintenance to countless droids on phones - most of these.. speaking for The Corporation. Certainly much more of this than say - 20 yrs. ago. Ashton. who has come to believe that dishonesty \| Corporate 'Success' are inextricably entwined. And after all is said, We Are a Corporatocracy [or I have noticed Nothing.]
Post #160,578 by ben_tilly 6/19/04 9:56:50 PM Reply	Being ethical doesn't usually get you ahead. :-( But that isn't new. Machiavelli documented it 500 years ago. Human nature hasn't changed. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #160,584 by broomberg 6/19/04 10:08:57 PM Reply	It's a mixture Short term VS long term gain. Unethical behaviour allows for immediate gain while sacrificing long term, at least if long term depends on future trust. Unless there is a chance for absolute power, which means long term gain is assured.
Post #160,586 by ben_tilly 6/19/04 10:15:21 PM Reply	Indeed By business, the level of personal ethics that you will see is strongly dependent on how much retaining your good will results in repeat business. Car mechanics in strange cities and people associated in arranging wedding parties stand out as examples of people who have no such long-term incentives. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #160,607 by Ashton 6/20/04 5:43:41 AM Reply	Parsing behaviour into bizness 'logic' may perfectly explain the popularity of rationalizing personal dishonesty [via some formula re present or future "gain"] - as if digital-logic were quite enough to deal with this or any other human quality. Rest case.

Welcome to IWETHEY!