[1659447091]

I believe we are talking two separate things.

You appear to be talking about the external consequences of choices, while I am talking about them making a choice based on what they believed was the inner rightness of their choice. They did not want to be associated with a company like that, so they made the choice to not be -- because it aligned with their inner knowing of not wanting to be a part of that company. The right or wrongness in terms of external consequences is not what makes the choice, right or wrong -- for them

[Dylan16807]

But they left the vast majority of the morality on the table. They even talked to a lawyer to avoid reporting. So in the sense of making the choice that aligns with inner rightness and makes them moral, they still made a bad choice.

[1659447091]

> making the choice that aligns with inner rightness

Again, I am talking about -- them -- not anyone one else or what anyone else thinks of it outside of them. I am not talking about "inner rightness" in general, I am talking "what they believed was the inner rightness of their choice" -- Their inner rightness. You seem to be talking about what -- you and/or others -- may believe from an outside perspective. My outside perspective is they made the choice that did not align with integrity. But that does not mean that was not the right choice for them.

And again, they made the right choice, for them -- at that time. How that plays out after is neither here nor there and in your labeling it a "bad" choice for them is akin to saying that they have no real agency over their choices, and we outside of them are the final say in what is good or bad for that person.

[Dylan16807]

Again, I am talking about things internal to that specific person just as much as you are. Not external anything.

You are trying to focus on what they believed in that moment, but I see no reason to use that in an analysis of whether their actions fit their own morals. Sometimes people make mistakes even by their own rules. If we only care about what someone thought right in the heat of the moment, that category of mistake would be impossible, and it's not impossible. Saying that mistakes are possible is not overriding agency.

The core of it is in this line "the choice was what they seemed to think was right, for them, at the time. Thus it was the right choice for them". I don't agree with that logic at all. Humans are not good enough at following their own motivations and principles. They are impulsive and bad at analysis. You can't assume that their choices will always be consistent with their personal parameters of right and wrong.

Also, saying I think someone made a mistake is not denying agency. Don't be so melodramatic. Nowhere am I claiming to have the final say. I merely have the right to an opinion.

[1659447091]

I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this.

I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop.

You’re the one bringing the extra opinions into the matter and reading into a simple thing far too much. Most of the above I agree with you on outside of this particular thread. It has nothing to do with the very narrow scope of my original comment and attempted clarification.

Neither of us can know 100% what was right or wrong for them in that moment, but based on the information of A. no longer feeling right about being associated with a place for reasons that they deemed important enough to come to this conclusion — and B. aligning actions with that inner knowledge; makes it the right action (choice) for that person. If they changed their mind later, it does not change the immutable facts of that moment. It simply provides a new set of choices and options that is outside the scope of my original comment.

[Dylan16807]

> I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this.

When I say mistake here, I specifically mean "mistake as far as their goal of making the right choice". And I mean that in the moment, using knowledge they have at that time, just like you're defining "right choice". Nothing after the fact nor outside the scope.

> I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop.

I don't see how they gave enough information to be sure, but more importantly you seemed to make a generic statement that anyone making a choice like that would be making the right choice, and that's what I really object to.

> You’re the one bringing the extra opinions

I am not! Please stop misreading me! Why won't you listen to what I'm saying about my own argument?

> Neither of us can know 100% what was right or wrong for them in that moment,

Please explain how "neither of us can know 100%" can be true at the same time as "only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop."

> A, B

Remember that not reporting the company was also part of the choice they made. The basic description of the choice was to report, quit, both, or neither, and they chose to quit.

> If they changed their mind later, it does not change the immutable facts of that moment. It simply provides a new set of choices and options that is outside the scope of my original comment.

I'm not talking about whether someone might change their mind later with new information, per se. I'm making the objectively true claim that people don't always think things through, meaning their choice might fail to represent the knowledge and priorities they had at the time.

[arminiusreturns]

Since this thread seems interested, I will reveal the main issue being that based on my analysis, reporting to PCI and the state AG would have absolutely destroyed this (very) small business and the businessowner, someone who helped me in a very rough time, and thus I felt both options were bad/wrong, but resigning without whistleblowing was the better of the two options. I appreciate the analysis and really hope I made the right choice, and if I change my mind, I can still whistleblow on this, which has been a solace in the struggle in this decision.