Jeffrey Epstein Gave $850k to MIT, and Administrators Knew | Hacker News Reader

Jeffrey Epstein Gave $850k to MIT, and Administrators Knew

nytimes.com

20 pointsDangeranger4 comments

Are there any studies on the ethical and moral presumptions in taking miscreants' money? Is it required to shun miscreants? Is it an approval of miscreant actions if the money is taken?

Is it that the miscreant may come back and say "this is why I do it, so I can give.."? Would a simple public disclaimer "we not only not condone, we vehemently oppose ..." at time of donation resolve this? What makes taking with a disclaimer hypocritical?

If you were dying of liver cancer, knowing a a new liver would save you, and a murderous dictator walked up and said, here is my matching liver, would you take it?

If you take $1M and don't do what the donor asks, I'm guessing word spreads and other would-be-donors know not to donate to you.

How do you determine as an outsider the difference between a donation with an ask and a "no strings attached" donation?

Why didn't he donate anonymously?

MIT wasn't dying of liver cancer. This is more like a serial killer walked up and just started passing you suitcases of money, and you never tell anyone how you paid for that new car and refurbished office, and you certainly don't ever tell the police about the serial killer.

What's your goal in asking so many almost irrelevant questions?

1) Probably. 2) No. 3) No. 4) No. 5) Depends. 6) Depends. 7) Sure.

I use "almost irrelevant" because "miscreant" is such a broad term that it can apply to any "person who behaves in a way that is morally wrong, badly, viciously or in a criminal manner." https://dictionary.thelaw.com/miscreant/

Yes, a miscreant doesn't even need to break the law.

The example at https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/miscreant is "A miscreant is a person who behaves badly — who lies, breaks the law, yells at puppies. It's a somewhat old-fashioned word, popular with old ladies shocked at having their purses stolen at the opera."

"Yelling at puppies" and "procuring an underage girl for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute" is such a broad range of behavior that your questions involving that term can't meaningfully be about the MIT's actions. Or any real-world discussion of ethics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com