On the one hand, this is a great article. On the other, I now have to go the rest of my day knowing that I said that about an article published by the Guardian.
There’s a Harvard Professor named Richard Wolfe who always likes to tickle his audience by asking the question “Why do universities have an Economics department that’s distinct and separate from the Business School?” And then he gets into the distinctions between the western ideology around economic planning relative to the practical education around running an efficient business.
The People’s Republic of Walmart also goes into this bifrication of western understanding of efficient economic practices. Theorists preach the value of competition and choice and flexibility and auction pricing, while successful CEOs tend to prefer strict hierarchies over regional monopolies with steady schedules and well-defined quotas and flat fees.
Anon had a massive dunk on his professor lined up.
“You said there would be no judgement and said that people should lie rather than put an accurate score on an ethics survey. Wouldn’t that make your score lower than 36 then?”
I’d say that this is one of the few exceptions to the “those who can’t do teach” stereotype being bullshit but clearly he sucks at teaching others ethics as much as he sucks at being ethical in his own behavior 🤷
Those who can’t do teach, and those who can’t teach manage. After working with normal people, teachers and managers I have concluded that managers should be excluded from homo sapiens sapiens. They are more like chimpanzees with some learnt behaviours that they don’t fully understand but will perform for a treat.
I don’t actually think I know what a manager is. I’ve always thought it was synonymous with supervisor, but I’m a supervisor and I do all the work the guys I work with do plus the “manager” responsibilities. There is no time where I’m just sitting around sipping coffee or whatever the memes are. I’m building shit and fixing the problems my team come across.
I guess I’ve just never worked in a place where I’ve had the kind of management people complain about.
I guess I look at this as the teacher setting the tone early to disabuse the students of any false notions of what the ethics class actually is. Shame they did it in such a shitty way, but I see that as part of their point too. I’m not sure I believe the scenario is necessarily real, but if it is, the message would be appear to be that going forward everyone must understand that this isn’t going to be about how to be ethical, but how to appear to meet artificial requirements that pay lip service to ethics. A teaching to the test kind of approach.
Teaching explicitly that they should act unethically (lie about their ethical convictions) to ensure they meet future expectations of falsely signalled ethics, and teaching that through a pretty unethical act of deception and public humiliation delivers this message quite succinctly and makes it pretty clear what to expect here on in.
I’m with the professor on this. If you self-identify as a mostly unethical person, I’d fire you too. I disagree with encouraging him to lie in the future though. 2 times out of 3, this guy says he’ll make a shady choice.
And on top of that, he’s so stupid that the 1 on 3 he does the right thing is revealing that. If not fired for being un ethical, fire because he’s an idiot.
I disagree. People like this will put any of their own gain above their morality. And if we look at this rationally, sure at first that means you will start living comfortable. But if everyone does what you do, the world around you would suck. And I’m sorry, I don’t want the world around me to suck, even if I have to sacrifice some potential gain for that.
And this is why, even as a completely egotistical asshole, your goals should be noble, even if only for your own sake.
And this is also why no one should promote lying if there’s not a damn good reason. This is not a damn good reason.
The professor can’t be right, he said no judgement, be honest and judged an honest answer not for the frame of mind that lead anon to believe it, but rather for being honest (which he himself asked it to be), so I can’t see any valuable lesson here.
The scale is subjectively relative though. Maybe anon feels that because they eat meat, don’t recycle, don’t tip well, etc, that he is acting unethically. By that scale, he’s probably significantly much more ethical than someone without that awareness.
Plenty of self hating people from former hyper religious households out there too. A lot of people in general, who hate themselves and don’t come from a religious household.
The irony being that the person who rates themselves as unethical is actually likely to be one of the most ethical people answering; someone truly unethical would’ve lied about it in the first place, or failed to even notice or acknowledge their unethicalness.