Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by scotty79 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

scotty79

> due to your own incompetence.

Are you still unethical when you don't know about your incompetence?

Can you be unethical if you had no ability to know that what you do is unethical?

View on HN

> Are you still unethical when you don't know about your incompetence?

You're correct that reality can be more complicated, and it depends. I can imagine a scenario, e.g. the plot of "Manchester by the Sea" which doesn't seem completely unethical. I find it hard to believe in this case that he was that incompetent. I think he took what he believed to be a calculated risk, and I'm guessing he didn't go around broadcasting that information to the other people on the tour.

They signed a waiver that mentioned the risk of "death" 3 times on the first page. I'd call that broadcasting.

Edit: I mean just read the waiver: https://nypost.com/2023/06/23/read-the-death-waiver-doomed-t...

It speaks for itself.

I think this is only partially true. Generally,

Risk = probability x severity.

From that link, they characterized the severity (death) but not the probability. Saying "you may die" is different from saying "your have a 50% chance of dying." My guess is nobody had a good estimate for the probability so nobody could have accurately communicated the risk.

"2. A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles."

I don't know. This implies a high probability to me.

It's not quantified though. Also, it's pretty bad engineering practice to rely on implied risk; it's much more preferred to explicitly state your risk assumptions.

E.g., one of the problems with the Shuttle disasters is that the implied risk was understood differently at various levels. (Making numbers up here but directionally accurate) After the fact, managers thought there was a 1/1000 risk of catastrophic failure while engineers put it a 1/172.

The sub had already completed a few dives to the titanic and the CEO downplayed the risks in the texts that came out between him and a guy that pulled out. Taking both of those together I can see why a non-technical person might be taken in and therefore dismiss the waiver as typical legalese.

If you ever do anything "risky" you'll fill out a similar form. Go look into skydiver liability forms, they also mention the possibility of death or injury. I suspect most people embarking on expensive & risky adventures are used to these and based on previous adventures being alright just sign the paperwork without reading or thinking about it deeply.

I'd be running the moment I read this paragraph:

>2. A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles.

If you don't, you knew and accepted the risk.

I sign waivers that mention the risk of "serious injury or death" for my kids to play little league. People just see it as legalese.

Do those waivers also mention the experimental vessel, explicitly disclaim that any regulations or certifications were followed, and that the construction materials are untested for the intended use?

A local burger place in my town makes you sign a waiver before consuming certain burgers.

Fair enough.

He had actual experts telling him that this thing was unsafe. He fired people who said the thing was unsafe and that it wasn't ready for manned dives.

I would argue it is always unethical to ignore the advice of experts when putting other people's safety on the line.

This is called criminal negligence

It's why the standard for negligence is "known or should have known" i.e. the person has enough experience or education to have known better. It's probably harder to prove than it sounds.

should have known IE the person is operating in a subject/domain where they're expected to know certain things, regardless of their own experience, like deep sea diving

based on communique both to and from the CEO, the CEO did, in fact, know, that the vessel was not certified to do what it was doing, and that there were safety risks to it

Lol yes. Ethics judgements aren't exactly made by one's self on one's self (unless you really do bad and you live your life in regret). But are generally made by your peers and those around you. Your ignorance plays no bearing on their judgement of your actions being ethical or not. You can be the dumbest deadshit in the world and they can still judge your actions as unethical. So yes you can certainly be unethical, even if your too dumb to understand why.

If someone else clearly warns you, yes.

Similar story:

> Authorities say a 28-year-old Texas man was attacked and killed by an alligator “almost immediately” after being warned by a bystander not to swim in the water, replying “fuck that alligator” before jumping in.

https://www.gawker.com/fuck-that-alligator-man-killed-second...

Can you still commit a crime if you don't know that what you're doing is against the law?

Not usually, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

You can definitely be convicted of one, though!

Lol thought experiment. Your driving in a new area and don't see a change in speed limit because a large truck blocked your view of the sign as you passed it. You get pulled over a short period later for going 20 above the speed limit. Do you think you can be fined or not? Should you be fined or not?

You can be fined, the fine might be reversible in court, you shouldn't be fined.

The cop should just give you a warning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com