new | show | ask | jobs Github

Cyphase 4 hours ago

Quite tangential, but this reminded me of a line from Human Target:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6tqvzt?start=872&mute=fal...

"I'm sorry, you... You think I'm a prostitute?"

looks at offered cash

"A $40 prostitute?"

▲

atmosx 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Cheap or not doesn’t matter.

Sir Winston Churchill supposedly asked Lady Astor whether she would sleep with him for five million pounds. She said she supposed she would. Then he asked whether she would sleep with him for only five pounds. She answered,"What do you think I am?" His response was, "We've already established that; we're merely haggling over price."- Marcus Felson, Crime and Everyday Life, Second Edition, 1998

▲

knollimar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it does matter and this quote is always flaunted like it's some deep insight but it intentionally ignored nuance. An amount you can comfortably retire on is way different than $5.

We love to pretend humans have unflinching morals but they don't

▲

sph 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On the other hand, immoral people would try to convince you that anybody would kill their own mother for the right price.

	▲	lazide 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Eh, billions…. (/s)

▲

DANmode 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“We” also love to pretend that every, (or even most), humans who could break laws, or common moral boundaries in order to cash out actually do that.

I think that’s a fallacy, too.

	▲	saghm 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I imagine the number of people who would do it if they theoretically knew they had no chance of getting caught is different than the number of people who actually do it. I don't disagree with your conclusion about how many people do, but knowing how many people would lie, cheat, steal, or murder their way to wealth but don't due to sufficient deterrent is useful knowledge in how to structure a society. To be clear, I'm not making any claims about whether this is a large proportion or not, because I have absolutely no idea (and I have doubts this would even be possible to calculate with even a remote degree of confidence purely via philosophical discussion). If anything, some sort of study that provides evidence that this number is lower than expected would be a strong argument against typical "tough on crime" policies that are often popular with people who express concern about human nature in this regard.
	▲	knollimar 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Agreed; an equally flawed assertion. In my view we have some unflinching morals, some more flexible ones, and some you don't adhere to at all, and which is which tends to differ between people. I personally don't believe in non-religious ontological good because of this aspect of human nature.

▲

TacticalCoder 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think it does matter and this quote is always flaunted like it's some deep insight but it intentionally ignored nuance

There are people that wouldn't do it no matter the amount. Not for billions. Not for a trillion. And that's why no matter how rich the other party, there are people to whom they simply aren't rich enough.

"No" is the most powerful word in the dictionary. And when some people say no, they really mean no. And no amount of money can change that.

And most filthy, corrupt, bribed politicians and corrupt public servants out there know that fully well: they feel filthy and miserable because they know there are people out there with moral and ethics.

Additionally, there are people who honestly really don't give a fuck about money (it's not my case): so they'll say no not because of particularly high moral or high ethics, they'll say no just because they enjoy their simple life.

Honestly it's a sign of low moral and low ethics to believe that anyone can be bought out and that it's just about the amount.