Hacker News Reader

Comment by keiferski | Hacker News Reader

I have no desire to debate what is "ethical", but I'm a little surprised there is no mention of their definition. Nietzsche for one would say that this study's results are simply because modern ethical guidelines are based on those of the lower classes. So it's quite obvious that higher social classes are "unethical" simply because the poor's values are anti-upper class.

View on HN

>I'm a little surprised there is no mention of their definition [for 'ethical'].

No you're not. ;)

If they define it, people can/will disagree with it. If they don't, they can't/won't.

Or, think of it this way: how many studies with similar outsets but which included a real attempt at a definition for 'ethical' do you think go viral enough to a) make it to HN, and b) get 46 upvotes in 60-119 minutes?

That's a problem qualitative social scientists often have with this kind of work. In their view, the right way to analyze something like this would require at least several months of classic ethnographic fieldwork: interview and observe people in a community, read its newspapers, try to understand how to it functions, what socioeconomic class categories people see themselves and others as a part of, what problems frequently come up around that, etc. Only after a phase of open-ended investigation to try to understand what's going on would you then try to abstract any general conclusions about how social class in Berkeley impacts something as broad as "ethics".

By contrast, the quantitative psych-influenced approach is to pick a proxy variable and measure it, either in the lab or in the field. Much less work, and many people will actually think that style of work is more scientific (it has numbers and p-values). It also makes for better definitive soundbites, because it states a bold conclusion that it doesn't qualify with the dozens of caveats you'd find in a year of real investigation. But it's also considerably more superficial and at risk of measuring based on problematic choices of categories and proxies.

Hmm. I'll have to do something about that.

Thanks for the perspective.

Weird how you come to that conclusion. Cultural hegemony comes to mind, which is important in analysis of anthropological and sociological studies, claims the exact opposite of this: that the lower-classes emulate and internalize the mores of the ruling class.

Anecdotally, I come from a low income family and witnessed first hand the dissonant beliefs my parents held, that materialistically and socially benefited the rich at our expense, personally, and as a class.

It comes as a real surprise that it is that obvious to you. Are you from outside the United States? Perhaps that may be true in a society that has a shred of class consciousness, but certainly not here.

I don't necessarily agree with Nietzsche, I was just giving his opinion (for him). I definitely don't think that his diagnosis of 19th century immediate-post-Christian Europe is spot on to 21st Century materialistic America, but it's still relevant in a lot of higher level ways. I'm talking more about how utilitarianism is basically the default "ethical" choice today, and how this is a previously Christian "slave morality" ethical view. These are all Nietzsche-ian terms, not mine.