Hacker News Reader

Comment by mden | Hacker News Reader

"most fraudsters are not evil people, they just follow the incentives and almost non-existent disincentives"

Maybe I'm too idealistic but why does following incentives with no regard for secondary consequences not evil?

I have the displeasure of having acquaintances that have done some pretty bad things, of the fraud and bribery persuasion. They did so because they had no regard of the secondary cosequences. However, this didn't mean 'I understand this horrible secondary consequence is going to happen, but I don't care'. That would be evil. Instead, it's more common to not dedicate an iota of time at thinking of possible negative effects at all.

You'll see this all over risky startups. What starts as hopeful optimism only becomes fraud over time, when the consequences of not committing fraud also seem horrible. It's easy to follow the road until all your choices are horrible in different ways, and they pick the one better for the people around them, yet worse for everyone else.

Our judgment of societal ills and the concept of "evil" rests too much on the question of "is this a bad person?" today. Most people who do heinous things are not bad people, but the fact that they did bad things really ought to be enough to mete out punishment.

Lack of foresight isn't a virtue, it's as much of a vice as knowing the consequences and ignoring them. If you lack foresight and that causes you to commit fraud, you committed fraud, plain and simple. That is evil.

IMO “evil” is a misconception. People have different beliefs and psychological needs, and placed in certain incentive structures that has the outcomes that we see. You can call certain behaviors “evil”, but that doesn’t explain anything about why the behaviors occur.

If someone raped your wife and set your children on fire, you would probably rethink your stance on evil.

Nope. “Evil” still provides no explanation and no understanding of why and how things happen there. It’s the same thing as believing in miracles created by a god.

Callng someone "evil" isn't meant to have some explanatory power. It's merely a label saying that they are, well, evil.

The context here is from the root comment: “Are people who commit this type of science fraud just really evil humans?”. “Just really evil” implies that that there is no other explanation, and that the fraud is committed as a function of them being “really evil”.

I don’t actually know what people mean when they label someone as “evil”, other than “is doing/saying/thinking stuff I find very reprehensible”. Which doesn’t make sense when you insert it into the above statement: “Are people who commit this type of science fraud just humans who do stuff I find really reprehensible?” Well, I guess it sounds like they are.

It seems like people want to assign a character trait when they say “person X is evil”, but I don’t believe such a generic character trait exists (and what exactly it is supposed to mean if it existed). What’s worse, it obfuscates and prevents understanding the actual character traits and circumstances that lead to the respective behavior.

Perhaps if you define evil as a low quantity of ability or commitment to search for and act in accordance to what is ultimately true then that will better resonate with you. Of course, that will necessarily lead to questions regarding the nature of truth and whether it exists, but that is beyond the scope of a short reply :)

I agree, "evil" is a misconception, there exists no such thing as an "evil" person, in reality, just as there is no such thing as a "darling" person, in reality. But both expressions work as an expression of sentiment. When we use it we aim to communicate that we feel no empathy for such people (in case they are "evil"); they can without further ado be thrown in the dungeon. It is a dehumanizing construct enabling hate, same as calling people vermin, or monsters, but with religious connotations, exposing a will to exclude such people from the community (often for god reason), enabling going to war, or to exploit.

However, by removing empathy, we also reduce the possibility to understand the human motivations behind heinous acts (there always are), find solutions, build bridges, make truces, end wars. So maybe we should go lightly on the "evil" stuff, as much as possible.

Physical pain is objective. Someone inflecting physical pain is evil unless it’s in self defense or common sense situations like a doctor performing surgery.

What is a general definition of “evil” that one could derive this from? And how does this relate to the actual reasons why someone would inflect physical pain? Are soldiers in a war evil when they happen to inflict physical pain outside of self defense? Or is that another “common-sense” exception?

The concept is emotionally laden and ill-defined, and has little relation to why the designated behaviors actually happen. It’s an incoherent concept that has no explanatory power.

Physical pain is one of the most subjective concepts in the Universe.

Exactly. In fact, all things in the universe are subjective except exactly one thing, which is that all other things are subjective. This is epistemological monism, and it's the only coherent view.

Socrates got it. "I know that I know nothing" (else)

Because we're cowards, and declaring vast swatches of our economy and society to be evil is not good for our future prospects. In other words, you can't tell people not to put radium up their asshole!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com