171–180 of 748 posts
If one considers Kant's categorical imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," then also considers how they'd feel if they were go to visit a doctor who had cheated or is cheating, one certainly must draw the conclusion that cheating is indeed immoral and undesirable.
Reading some of the comments in this thread I'm surprised. It seems that a substantial number of people think one of the following: a.) cheating on interviews is ok, because interviews don't reflect the actual job b.) this is acceptable because the promotion process is distinct from the interview process or c.) that the cheaters clearly are skilled after all because of all their success, as evidenced by being promote…
This turns us into low trust societies like China or India. Which a lot of the blind demographic are from
If one considers Kant's categorical imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," then also considers how they'd feel if they were go to visit a doctor who had cheated or is cheating, one certainly must draw the conclusion that cheating is indeed immoral and undesirable.
So basically "do unto others" but phrased needlessly complexly?
> Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others. On the other hand, in a critique of the consistency of Kant's writings, several authors have noted the "similarity" between the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (See discussion at this link).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I relate heavily to the spirit of your comments. Wouldn't we all be better off if we lived in a society that is built on trust and honesty. However, I think you're being a little naive if you think the days of "yesteryear" were somehow different in man's capacity and willingness to do what he needs to do to survive. I mean in every facet of life we're basically awash in never before seen capacity to benefit from dish…
Yeah, you're definitely right about that. I wasn't there for the golden era, which I imagine to be something like Jobs and Woz phreaking on the phones and ripping of Xerox as sort of the "noble" form of evil. It's hard to speak quantitatively about qualitative things, but that' something that enters the discussion as soon as words like "more" or "less" are uttered. In any case, you're absolutely correct that I'm defi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A resposne comment says: > In business there is no cheating, there is only making money and not making money. This attitude is very common among people I know. You ask "how the world can function if everyone were to think and act like that." We muddle through, is the answer.
> > In business there is no cheating, there is only making money and not making money. This is the attitude that turns business from being something that is for the greater benefit of all into something that more like a cancer, harmful to all.
I'm probably going to get roasted for saying this, but this is completely unsurprising to me. When I was in college, folks from India and other low trust societies would mercilessly cheat on their projects and exams, blatantly helping one another on individual works, and the college knew about it and didn't care. When I had brought this up at one point, I was told by a professor that it was a cultural difference that…
Either the code is short, or it isn't.
Either the chair supports your weight, or it breaks.
I think I enjoy these pursuits as an antidote to the kind of software I have to deal with on a daily basis - it's the kind that is so complex there are "no obvious deficiencies", so being able to retreat to domains where there are "obviously no deficiencies" is a treat.
TBF I don't think this is bad. The "cheating" involved seems a closer match to the actual real world conditions of the doing the job than the artificial "no internet allowed" assessment. If the candidates can get stuff done but need the internet as a reference, that's still getting stuff done. Not surprising that they are now getting promoted given they can not only get stuff done, but were resourceful enough to find…
I’m going to go out on a limb here and be “that guy”. But in my experience, there’s a big difference between perspectives on cheating in the US vs perspectives in… let’s just say broadly… “some other nations”. I say this as an American who has lived overseas much of my life and, lest you think I’m just a flag waving parrot for the US, prob prefer living overseas and am more than willing to criticize the heck out of t…
Reading some of the comments in this thread I'm surprised. It seems that a substantial number of people think one of the following: a.) cheating on interviews is ok, because interviews don't reflect the actual job b.) this is acceptable because the promotion process is distinct from the interview process or c.) that the cheaters clearly are skilled after all because of all their success, as evidenced by being promote…
This is gonna be a weak comment because I can't find references, but whatever. I remember listening to a podcast recently that compared boys and girls in school. The takeaway was that girls generally try to do all of the work, whereas boys were far more likely to take short cuts to success. And this was the reason why boys were doing better in university and afterwards. The conclusion of the podcast was that we shoul…
This is just my personal take, but I like the Plato way of thinking about this. If we were to invent an evil person who succeeds at everything, including being perceived as good by their peers, and also invent a good person who fails at everything and is unfairly or coincidentally perceived as evil by everyone, the "good person" still wins.
He argues that's because to be "good" requires to know separate it from bad, and that essentially knowing good from bad is what wisdom is. This, he argues, comes from having some kind of access to the truth, and the truth is the end-all-be-all. He believes that truth is more powerful, than power itself.
Finally, he argues that truth is more powerful than power because with power alone you only have the ability to achieve your aims but not the ability to know if they're good for you or bad for you. So finally he says this is why tyrants are always such sad people.
I don't know if we can fix a broken system in the sense that the wise people will always have the power, but I do find his argument persuasive and I know which of the two I prioritize. That's why when people act out in these ways, like cheating on interviews but also other things, I just accept it as you laid out earlier. Rules can be broken. It's not ideal, but it's fine.