[bambax]

Of course, but I don't think it's specific to "the west" or "corrupt societies". It's human nature. If you're part of a group and you speak against the group, esp. to another group, the group will move to destroy you.

It doesn't matter if you're right; it doesn't matter if the group is doing bad things; it doesn't matter if speaking up will help save lives.

The function of the group is to survive as a group; it will do whatever it takes to achieve that.

Laws that go against human nature fight an uphill battle; it doesn't mean we should not try, but it does mean we should be aware of the difficulty.

[ikurei]

So many laws go against human nature; those might be the most important laws.

I don't expect the greedy and powerful to change, but as a society we should do more to protect whistleblowers, the same way we protect threatened witnesses.

Also, more solidarity between workers, although not always possible, would go a long way. So many Google employees can definitely afford to quit in solidarity, or strike. Not saying it's easy, I recognize it isn't.

[c0brac0bra]

You might even say that ALL laws go against human nature. If it was in our nature to follow a certain law we probably wouldn't need it codified.

[stjohnswarts]

Other than basic needs is there "human nature" ? Some people will give you the last bite of food, others will lie to you to add to their hoard. I think laws are to make sure we all are on an even playing field (as much as possible) and to deter from the worst aspects of -some- humans who tend to be bad actors. Obviously that's ideally. A lot of times laws enacted by dictators/oppressive religions are there to keep people miserable and afraid and power for the elite (whether communists, capitalists, religiofascists, etc)

[fuzzfactor]

When you do the math it's really the vestigial remnants shared with inhuman primates, which have not been completely overcome by the process of civilization so far, that underlie the need for so many laws that would be completely un-necessary if everyone was fully steeped in extreme true humanity and behaved that way all the time.

Too bad we are not evolved enough to have left all of this inhumanity behind along with the extinct hominids, but you have to play the hand you are dealt.

When you think about it though, what most people usually call "human nature" is actually really inhuman nature which has not been fully surpassed.

They wouldn't say it if it wasn't false ;)

Also widely regarded as an excuse to begin with even if not fully recognized as such.

It's always been plain to see the world would be a better place the more inhumanity has been eradicated, but there have always been those who favor more inhumanity not less anyway.

Maybe some people have always been concentrating on their limitations rather than their possibilities, and that's been the limit of their horizon historically since the dawn of man. Others, not so much.

Full "human nature" would be the complete absence of inhumanity in thought & deed.

[verisimi]

Laws are for thee, not for me.

They are a control mechanism for the masses, nothing to do with right or wrong, which is written in our hearts. But, if you want to disempower the individual, take his money (tax), use that money against him (police, tax inspectors) you need some authorised hymnsheet for the feeble minded to get behind. And that is law.

[pixl97]

>nothing to do with right or wrong, which is written in our heart

It's just quite unfortunate we're all reading from different heart books.

[NemoNobody]

I don't think we are reading different heart books at all - we are taught that we are but we are pretty much exactly the same when it comes to matters of the heart

[pixl97]

[Looks at the DSM-5]

No, no we are not.

[verisimi]

Really? Or is it that you've never looked, and take the poor imitation instead?

Funny, btw. But, not all truth has to be found in a book.. Arguably, no truth is.

[ordu]

> Laws that go against human nature fight an uphill battle

I'm reluctant to name it "human nature", but let it be.

Most laws are needed to restrict "human nature". Moral codes exist to restrict "human nature". So it is the fate of a law.

> The function of the group is to survive as a group; it will do whatever it takes to achieve that.

It is an oversimplification I believe. Groups have very different goals, and sometimes money is more important then group existence. Groups can accept additional existential risks to increase profits, in such cases it means money has more importance for a group than its existence.

[gcanyon]

> simplifying: "laws and moral codes exist to restrict 'human nature'"

I strongly disagree with that. Laws (and moral codes) exist to codify the general, agreed-upon human nature. They therefore "restrict," as you say, a subset of people whose internal moral compass is broken.

To pick the most extreme example: most people don't need a law, or even a moral code, to not kill other people. We all (for some large and growing, but not 100%) agreed that killing is wrong, and most of us do not need the threat of a murder trial to talk us out of killing someone who cuts in front of us at the fast food line. To be clear, not 100% of us, but more than 50%, and I hope in many places, much more than 50% of us.

For other, less extreme crimes, the percent of people in consensus might be lower. But even for something like speeding on the highway I think human nature is, on average, a limiting factor more than laws or moral codes, rather than being an uncontrolled source of chaos reined in by law.

People (on average) drive maybe 60-80 mph on the highway (depending on the highway -- looking at you, Montana). If there were no speed limit at all, that wouldn't jump that much: the average speed on the autobahn is apparently 125kph, or 78mph.

Everyone's human nature is, on average, reasonably aligned, and laws tend to reflect that average.

[ordu]

It is the reason I do not like the term "human nature". Is it a human nature to kill other humans? Are moral considerations a part of a human nature?

> To pick the most extreme example: most people don't need a law, or even a moral code, to not kill other people.

How it may be a "nature" if it is artificial? Some cultures routinely eat other people, we do not, how it can be a human nature, if different people coalesce at different "natures"?

There is a famous debate "nature vs. nurture", and I believe it is unwise to call something to be a nature thing, if it is really a nurture thing. It just bring a lot of confusion.

> Everyone's human nature is, on average, reasonably aligned, and laws tend to reflect that average.

Eww... averages... I believe it is impossible to have a meaningful definition of an "average person". There was a story of average pilot[1], and later of a search for average american woman (can't find a link). You cannot have meaningful averages in highly multi-dimensional spaces.

But if we rephrase it referring to a social norms, it could make sense, but then comes a question what is the difference between human nature and social norms?

[1] https://worldwarwings.com/no-such-thing-as-an-average-pilot-...

[em-bee]

i very strongly agree. human nature is often used as an excuse for bad behavior. even stuff as seemingly benign as "boys will be boys". pretty much every behavior can be changed with proper training and good role models.

every human has the potential to be a great person. and only education is needed to enable that greatness and allow humanity to benefit from it.

[pixl97]

So the issue with laws is they are many types. Criminal, civil, statutory. Defining how the power grid works, what frequency it runs, what devices can be plugged into it so they don't explode is a set of codes/laws. If you violate those there are other sets of civil/criminal codes that can be used to remediate the situation.

And that's just one facet of our lives. In a low complexity society, especially ones with smaller populations there are typically fewer laws. As society grows, and especially as the populations begin to specialize formalized laws are a natural outcome. The farmer, the taylor, and the brickmaker all need common set of rules for expectation in things like trade and debt that get very hard to coordinate as population size grows.

[gcanyon]

Sure, I'm not arguing that laws aren't needed, just that they're generally more descriptive than prescriptive. I think the same applies even in cases where there is a clear tension between two direct parties, e.g. trade and debt as you describe: laws are a recognition of what most people (for some value of "most") think is fair and reasonable.

In short, laws are not (generally) handed down by some authority, against the will of the majority of the people -- at least not in non-dictatorships.

[WinstonSmith84]

OP has written: > even here in the west

No indeed it's not specific to the west, but the emphasis was worth it: many western people have such an high opinion of their country that they believe it could only happen in Iran, Russia, North Korea and the likes

[PeterisP]

There definitely is a difference. For example, he is alive - in countries around me there are similar cases which didn't end that well.

[dvdkon]

You'd do good to expect a threatened group (or individual) to lash out, but that's precisely why we have anti-retaliation laws. Think of them not as telling people they shouldn't try to destroy opponents, but that the society around them will punish them if they do, since it's beneficial for that society.

After all, laws in a rule-of-law country are better thought of as restrictions on the state, not the individual. Without criminal law, what's stopping a police officer for killing you if they think it's appropriate? Laws protecting whistleblowers can then be seen as a promise by society to individuals: "If you come forward, we have the power to protect you."

[Zambyte]

> If you're part of a group and you speak against the group, esp. to another group, the group will move to destroy you.

Not all "groups" are created equal though. I think a big factor in this is how much people make the group a part of their personal identity. If they feel like they are the group (ie "I am American"), then they feel like an attack on the group is an attack on them (is "Americans are dumb" means I am dumb).

Not all groups latch on to their members sense of identity like that, and in that case an attack on the group is much more acceptable to members of the group.

[mr_toad]

If you’re a good guy you’re “a member of the public”. If you’re a bad guy you’re “an individual”.

[lynx23]

You pretty much nailed it. Its only a whistleblower to outsides, its a mudslinger to insiders.

[BLKNSLVR]

mudslinger to the people who are profiting from the bad behaviour that they want to protect for no reason other than greed?

A more appropriate term than 'insiders' would be 'cunts'.

[ClumsyPilot]

> I don't think it's specific to "the west" or "corrupt societies". It's human nature.

The west is unique because it has created a very believable façade of cleanliness, majority of the population believes that whistleblowing works and often allegations of corruption are treated like conspiracy theory.

In, let's say, Russia, everyone knows that things are corrupt, at least they are realists.

> fight an uphill battle

For some reason our ideology talks about entrepreneurs as wealth creators and completely forgets about wealth creators that our society doesn't reward or punishes, like whistle-blowers.

[oska]

> In, let's say, Russia, everyone knows that things are corrupt

My guess would be that things are less corrupt in Russia in 2023 than in most 'Western' countries now.

[runnerup]

I don’t think it’s normal human nature to assault / murder / psychologically torture / ruin the life of / etc someone who points out what your group is doing wrong. It may happen from time to time, enough that it should be a potential expected response. But just like psychopathy and schizophrenia are abnormal, so is murdering or ruining the life of a whistleblower.

1-2% of the population may be a sociopath / psychopath — but its still considered “abnormal psychology”.

If someone had proof that a device I made was hurting people, I wouldn’t try to destroy their life or kill them.

A lot of this whistleblowing doesnt even have jailtime as a consequence to those who failed their duty of care - often it just means they’ll make a few million less dollars but still be plenty comfortable.

We shouldn’t feel its “normal” to murder / torture / assault or ruin the lives of these whistleblowers any more than we think sociopaths are “normal”.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/ebay-execs-sent-... <- this is not just normal “human nature”. It’s the result of abnormal psychology.

[bambax]

You don't think violence is part of human nature? I don't even know what to respond to that, except that it's not just socio- or psycho- or some other label of -paths. Everyone is capable of violence when threatened. Threatening the group is often perceived as worse than threatening a given individual, and will therefore induce a stronger reaction.

[runnerup]

I still dont think its normal to resort to violence just because someone will only make $400,000 this year instead of $4 million as a result of whistleblowing. Or even no change to their income but their company will make less profit as a result of whistleblowing. Or they’ll “be embarassed” as in the case of eBay.

That’s not a “threat” - they’re in no danger.

[mewpmewp2]

Yeah, in the end it all comes down to game theory.

[stjohnswarts]

do you want to bet on that?

[saiya-jin]

This. Its an uphill battle, and given the risks and rewards ratio definitely the smartest thing is to quietly walk away and report to regulators anonymously if possible.

The amount of cases where C-suites or owners take it very personally and go on vengeance streak are many... you don't want to fight bunch of very well-connected rich sociopaths hell-bent on destroying you or worse, and from position of a 'nice guy'.

[BLKNSLVR]

There's an odd angle in there that would make an interesting movie where, if the whistleblower was not, in fact, a 'nice guy', and was actually a sociopath who hadn't yet reached the level where they're the ones directing the bad behaviour.

It would be their opportunity to reach said level. Blackmail their way up the corporate ladder.

Is that how they get there?

[dustingetz]

well stated! i would add that the solution is to find a path of action that does not actually go against human nature but rather embraces it. My favorite historical example is religion, e.g. Moses and the 10 Commandments.

[indigochill]

I stand by the 10 Commandments, but people don't even agree what human nature is. I believe it's a reflection of a loving creator and others believe it's an evolutionary fluke while yet others believe it's a piece of a quasi-conscious universe discovering itself. If we can't agree what human nature even is, we're not going to agree what is most in line with it.

[dustingetz]

we don’t need to agree, it just needs to be metastable, and “thou shalt not kill” is a successful example of solving a tragedy of the commons by coordinating values over a group at scale, and in a way that navigates from one less desirable equilibrium to another more desirable equilibrium through a transition path that is itself stable (otherwise cheaters collapse the transition path)

citation:

Learning from Schelling's Strategy of Conflict Roger B. Myerson JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE VOL. 47, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2009 (pp. 1109-25) https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.47.4.1109