Comment by dumbfoundded | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dumbfoundded | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Epstein absolutely should've been locked away in 2008. I think it's more of a failure of our justice system than the Media Lab. I don't think the Media Lab did anything to assist Epstein in any way except enabling him to say he donated money to them. I hope the Media Lab took his money out of necessity rather than convenience but I don't know.

I wish we lived in a world where all of Epstein's assets were seized and allocated to victims (both specific and general), educational institutions and whatever else seemed appropriate. I wish the Media Lab took Epstein's money in this way.

Honestly, it's really a philosophical question. It's the classic debate between consequentialism and deontology. I'd argue that the consequences of taking his money were positive. I'd assume you'd say the action is inherently immoral.

We could go back and forth, talking about the trolly problem among many other contrived examples. Tt's a tricky subject.

There's a lot of these situations out there like this Nazi anatomy book we still use: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861.

Ultimately, I think we could agree that there are worse people out there, deserving grave punishment, involved with Epstein. I'd rather see this energy be prioritized to identifying and convicting the worst people first. After, I think debating the Media Lab's funding less than 0.3% of its budget morally condemns it.

There's a consequentialist argument to refusing the money, too: you're helping Epstein launder his reputation.

By accepting his money and continuing to work with him, you're basically telling Epstein that he's free to continue raping children — that as long as he can wriggle out of the legal stuff, he won't suffer any real professional or social consequences. And instead of helping to deter other would-be Epsteins, you're sending them a message that no matter how many children they rape, they'll still be greeted warmly.

Absolutely a good point. I'd say practically, the Media Lab didn't change much in this regard but it's impossible to know the full extent.

I do think you hit a certain line with donations. Many of the charities and hospitals he also donated to probably don't have the luxury of deciding who their money comes from.

It's a tricky situation but I think you make a solid point.

But Epstein didn't make his money by investing in MIT. He made is money being a pimp. You think he'd stop pimping if universities stopped taking his donations?

To me, the direction of the causal arrow is unclear. Was he able to throw money at MIT (and fulfill his fantasy of scientific/academic relevance) because he was a pimp, or did his involvement with these universities allow him to get closer to powerful people whom he'd manipulate with the offer of sex from young women? I agree that it's hard to definitely say because we're still unsure how exactly Epstein made his money.

Do places like Media Lab actually know (and really know well) the people they take donations from? This is an actual question, not me trying to be facetious.

We can trace all these things back in retrospect now, but it's a different situation than accepting money from someone in the moment without knowing what will happen to them in the future. Who knows what kind of person someone could turn into over time. For example, some world leader could donate a bunch of money to education at MIT and then commit genocide 10 years down the line. What happens then at the 10 years when the money is spent already?

The argument is that his 2008 conviction should have been enough to make the Media Lab reject his contributions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com