[jacquesm]

Yes, but that's not what we're discussing, because then I can counter with:

"Would you sell your mother or your children at any price?"

And I hope - admittedly, that's speculation - I know what the answer to that would be.

So this is now an absurd discussion, whereas it started off from a rational point of view: there exist such people whose ethics can not be corrupted. The fact that you believe this is not the case says nothing about people in general.

[sillysaurusx]

People did in fact sell their children when faced with hard times, by the way. The 1920’s era was rough. https://www.ranker.com/list/story-behind-photo-of-children-f...

You are asking what I would personally do. But it’s better to think of limit cases that everyone would do — such as lie to their wife for a billion dollars. Since it’s guaranteed you fall into the bucket of “everybody”, that means you can locate your ethical price tag.

It’s helpful for people to do this mental exercise. At least, I find it comforting knowing my own price tags in advance.

[jacquesm]

You are still moving the goalposts.

My statement is pretty simple: ethical people exist.

You countered with "Everyone’s ethics have a price tag. It’s better not to pretend otherwise, since it clarifies a lot of human behavior."

And have been moving the goalposts ever since. The fact that unethical people exist was never up for debate.

[sillysaurusx]

I had to scroll up and re-read to make sure we were on the same page.

Since you’re misquoting yourself, it sounds like you don’t want to have this debate, or you may not have realized what you said. But “The whole assumption that ethics have a price tag attached is faulty” is not at all the same thing as “ethical people exist.” It’s not a pedantic distinction; one is debating whether people will take compensation for acting unethically, even if they feel they’re the most ethical person on the planet — I think the answer is “yes” — whereas “ethical people exist” is a point no one could disagree with.

It’s a bit unexpected for you to omit your “price tag” words and then continue with my argument.

But we’re past the point that readers are having a nice time reading this. If you’d like to continue, I’m happy to do so, but we need to restrict ourselves to a high caliber of debate, if only for HN’s sake.

[jacquesm]

The distinction is pedantic because you are making it so.

Whereas in fact it is anything but pedantic.

"The whole assumption that ethics have a price tag attached is faulty"

For everyone.

> But we’re past the point that readers are having a nice time reading this.

You seem to be in a habit of projecting your own feelings onto everybody else.

> If you’d like to continue, I’m happy to do so, but we need to restrict ourselves to a high caliber of debate, if only for HN’s sake.

Suit yourself.

[sillysaurusx]

I'm saddened that a repeat of our debate from seven years ago won't be forthcoming today. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901682 I was looking forward to it.

If you ever do want to probe deeper into the question of ethics vs cost, I think it would be interesting. But since you keep talking about me rather than the idea, the interest feels one-sided.

[jacquesm]

Three different people have now made the same point in three different ways and you simply ignore it, consider the possibility that you are simply wrong about something.

Ethics problems typically do not lend themselves to be translated into a caricature of the market economy. The habit of assigning price tags to stuff can help if the original problem is cost related, but it tends to be a crutch when things of a more principal nature are discussed, which would have a valid meaning absent such things as money or physical rewards. As long as you keep framing it like that you won't get further.