Hacker News Reader

Comment by tilne | Hacker News Reader

I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but I disagree that Robins is to blame. If the system enables this kind of behavior, there will always be someone willing to take advantage. If not Robins, then the next shameless profiteer.

View on HN

Ah yes, the famous "if it’s not me someone else would do it therefore the system is to blame and not me". What a great logical fallacy. Your actions remain immoral even if there is plenty of other people ready to be as immoral as you are.

Both. We need both. Robins should be punished and the system should be fixed. Obviously. It's absolutely wild that we had to arrive here instead of starting here.

Personal responsibility is a good principle to live by but a dogshit principle for system design. It's a transparent but common ploy by the corrupt: "let's not fix the system and instead toss a few scapegoats to the plebs while we continue to rob them blind."

If we can agree that humans are imperfect, systems help nudge people towards more perfect.

I sure wish I had perfect willpower to avoid bad foods. But, alas, I am imperfect in that regard so I create a system that prevents bad foods from being in my house. The end result is that my behavior trends toward more perfect than had that system not be in place.

Moral philosophical discussions are fine and we can lament about the moral shortcomings of ourselves and others, but I think the systems argument is more pragmatic in creating real changes in behavior and outcomes.

This system is implementation of your willpower, though.

The feedback is only post-facto though. Laws don't prevent behavior, they only describe consequences.

FWIW, I think laws can be part of a system, but they’re not the only implantation

What if the system is designed by somebody else?

Introducing morality is shifting the goalposts.

Besides, complaining about immoral people doesn't fix the problem. Changing the law might.

That’s mixing cause and consequences. A society is shaped by its members not the other way round. The law can punish the most egregious transgressions. It won’t set the global standard. Education and social behaviour set the standards. If you want behaviour to disappear, stop treating them as acceptable.

All this indicates is that the problem is at the system level. It doesn’t mean the actor is somehow less culpable just because “someone else would have done it anyway.”

Correct. There are also plenty of people who realize that while things are possible within a system, they choose not to do them for moral / ethical reasons.

Not to put too fine a point on it but we are talking about the CEO of a gambling company here…

And anyway, the actions needed to fix the system are almost certainly punishing those people and the people that refuse to punish them.

> All this indicates is that the problem is at the system level.

The system is people just like the CEO - it’s a people problem

There is something deeply troubling about the sentiment "if I'm incentivised to act a certain way, that is the way I will act". This is not how normal human beings think, and it is not the type of human being that society should be designed for.

It is possible, and often appropriate, to simultaneously denounce both a system that is easily abused and people who abuse such systems.

I dont disagree that the main problem is systemic/political but all systems have flaws, people should always have a higher moral standard than simply following the law. Robins is to blame but not alone.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Not everything that isn't illegal is ethical.

> If the system enables this kind of behavior

The “system” enables any kind of behavior - people are free to attempt anything they can imagine, consequences are applied after the fact

Reply on news.ycombinator.com