The above (parent comment) as well as your comment "I pulled all the money out super excited about my find. He explained it wasn't mine" ... well, I can't agree that it teaches the proper lesson, even to a child.
Forgetting whether he is even right "it isn't yours" (I could argue against this) I think that's exactly the type of rigidity that teaches someone not to appreciate the nuance that you need to actually make real decisions in life. It just teaches black and white and unfortunately things aren't typically black and white.
I'm reminded of a time on "The Apprentice" where a candidate who was favored by Trump told him something claiming to be honest and thinking it was going to get him ahead and instead Trump "fired him". Forgetting we are talking about a TV show here (and obvious drama) life is full of nuances which you have to navigate. Being "too" honest can also send a message that you are not flexible and willing to consider the circumstances.
As far as "drive faster than the speed limit on an empty road" (the parent comment) the devil is in the details. Driving 56 in a 55 mile per hour zone is not a problem. In fact driving 60 isn't and at least where I live 65 isn't either. Cops typically never give tickets without some slack. And there is a reason for that.
If I interviewed someone and they claimed to not drive over the speed limit I wouldn't give any bonus points for that I'd actually take points away.
To me (and with all due respect to the parent commenters grandfather) when I hear things like this I think something is trying to prove honesty a bit to much and (once again not to imply the parent commenters grandfather is such a person) that is the type of person I actually watch out for sometimes.
99.9% of the time, that type of statement is more of a sign of your personality and less a sign of others'.
In reality, though, the main point that you missed is that in a world made of shades of gray, the only person you can ever truly rely on is yourself. If you don't have scruples and you don't have honor, you don't have anything.
That's the basic message. Trying to water it down with nuance and personal opinion about honesty in today's world is simply grasping for straws to justify choices made in your own life.
That's a lot more confrontational than I intended. Those are not meant to be the personal attacks they come across as.
Some people have honor in everything they do, they're good people. Some people have honor in only the major things they do, they're good people as well, but there may be some questionable choices when it comes to minor things like finding cash on the ground or speeding. Some people have no honor; avoid these people.
That allows for your nuance, but still allows for a code of honor. Kids need to be taught that. Act honorably, understand that not everyone adheres to your codes, and understand that even if they don't, they're not automatically bad people.
Well let me put it this way. I don't think you understand my point about nuances and that I (once again) don't feel any of this is black and white.
As an example the honor that I might display, and scruples I might display, for an individual are not the same that I might display for a corporation. If I hired someone, a hacker, to do programming, I would be much more lenient because of a person relationship and especially because of the knowing that my actions would have a large effect on that individual. Otoh if I had a project that was being done by "IBM Global services" I would absolutely angle things differently if things weren't done right. I wouldn't care about that company not getting it's $10,000 (arbitrary obviously).
If an individual were doing a project for me and made a mistake and under billed me I would point it out. If IBM did the same I wouldn't.
As it happens I have seen various behavior (on the other side, say vendors) of both individuals and corporations over a long long time that I have spent in business. And each situation really is different.
I didn't understand any of that when I was younger.
And I agree -- with me this knowledge has also had to come with age. Maybe others do better.
Nothing to be ashamed of though, plenty of people never learn that particular lesson.
Call it "nuance" or "gray area" all you want, but that is just amoral. You have no idea what situation led to the problem and what consequences your breach of contact will have. The project manager may have been operating on very little sleep and sent over the wrong version of the invoice. At the end of the quarter, they may lose their job.
I would 100% point out the discrepancy and pay them. When I decided to do business with them, I already determined that the terms were fair. To act otherwise when the bill comes in is entirely dishonorable.
Do you actually have a good example of nuance, or are you just trying to legitimize bad behavior?
Nobody speeds all the time. Even people who speed a lot will try to slow down for speed traps.
So everyone who speeds even those who speed only every now and then have to be constantly making a choice for when to speed.
They must constantly assess whether the benefits of speeding in this specific moment outweigh the disadvantages. There are dozens of variables: how much quicker will speeding be? will I be caught? is it safe to speed on this road at this time?
Much easier to ignore all that and just to drive below the speed limit.
Never? Never speeding also means not always keeping up with traffic which might be flowing at a higher rate of speed. Consequently you are chancing a greater risk of an accident by not keeping up with traffic and not speeding.
> “We all speed, yet months and months usually pass between us seeing a crash,”
This is a stupid argument. Do you really want to be in a crash every few months? Roughly the average person has a 1% lifetime chance of dying and a 10% chance of serious injury in a car crash. To me these are pretty high numbers.
> that sign won’t make people drive any slower
Where I live, speed limits are zealously enforced - loss of licence for a third offence in two years - and people do comply with them. So yes a sign won't do it but you can get people to comply.
As usual the US seems to find the worst solution: overly restrictive speed limits (55mph) combined with lack of enforcement. This causes large divergences in speeds, which is apparently dangerous.
The article seems to confuse the merits of driving slower than most traffic, with the merits of slowing traffic as a whole down. They are very different things. If most people on the autobahn are doing 110mph then one driver doing 55mph would be dangerous. However slowing everyone down to say 60 mph may be a much safer overall situation.
The drivers who obey the law do not bear responsibility for the increase in risk, but neither they raised their own safety.
I live in Durban, South Africa. Lots of people speed here and sometimes the fast lane will be moving faster than the limit. But I don't think I've ever been in a situation where all of the traffic is moving faster than the limit.
Is it common for all lanes to be moving faster than the speed limit where you are?
That's a utilitarian approach which is completely orthogonal to what this thread is about.
It's not following societies rules for the sake of it. It's following your own internal compass, _and_sticking_to_it_ regardless of if it benefits you now or harms you. Theirs just aligned with certain things you obviously don't value in a person.
1. Was that really the phone company's money? My first thought on hearing that story was that the $6 in change was from people putting money into the broken phone, realizing it was broken, and leaving without their money. Does the phone company really deserve money that the phone 'eats' when it doesn't deliver the service that people are giving it money for?
2. If you sent the phone company that $6 today, they would file criminal charges, because that cheque is an admission of guilt for stealing money from them. (Much in the way that, "I stumbled across a security flaw," is responded to nowadays)
1. Sure, it's possible the phone company didn't "deserve" the money (perhaps, as you say, the phone failed to make calls). But it's just as possible the phone company did "deserve" the money (and that the phone made calls but refunded the change). There's no way to know what happened for certain. However, what is certain is that the kid did not earn or "deserve" the money.
It also becomes quite dangerous to reason based on who "deserves" something. Am I entitled to rob any person who has not lived a moral life by my standards of morality? (No.) :)
2. I think this is hyperbole and a total strawman. Mailing $6 to a phone company will not result in a lawsuit. Do you actually think this would happen? I worry that attitudes like this come from the selection bias in the media, where rare outrageous stories are reported far more often than commonplace stories, resulting in shifted perceptions of reality. If you would care to bet or fund me, I would be happy to send $6 to a phone company. I highly doubt that criminal charges would be filed against me.
Your thoughts seem to be trying to rationalize taking money that isn't yours. I think this is precisely the attitude that his grandfather was hoping to avoid instilling in his grandchild.
(P.S. I mean no offense or snobbery, in case any came across.)
" what is certain is that the kid did not earn or "deserve" the money. It also becomes quite dangerous to reason based on who "deserves" something. "
Uhm, yeah, pardon my French, but that's complete bullshit.