[consteval]

I'm not speaking to the point - I'm speaking to right and wrong.

If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away. Therefore, people should do that.

If that sounds wrong to you, then the initial assumption might not be correct. Maybe it's not so bad to buy the tube of toothpaste.

Constraining yourself to extremely hard and fast rules seems like a good idea on the surface. But it's all about incentives. I can easily make the company bleed much more money while being within their rules. So why even bother?

A touch of leniency and common sense goes a long way.

[s1artibartfast]

>If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away.

That makes no sense, One does not imply the other

I have a business card with a limit of $5k for buying work materials. I might get forgiveness if the materials ended up being wasted. That doesn't mean it acceptable to use my business card to go to Disneyland, or that it is "Right" to use it for wasteful purchases.

Zero sympathy for thieves

[consteval]

People's supposed issue, and Meta's, is that this was not spent on food. We can fix that.

> Zero sympathy for thieves

I often find that those who process information in such absolute ways are typically simple-minded. I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice.

There are much better ways Meta should have gone through this. And, ultimately, I put the blame on them for coming up with an exploitable and naive policy.

[s1artibartfast]

Theft is a clear line and I wouldnt want to employ someone one who didnt respect.

I dont see how Meta has any moral obligation to prevent exploit. They should all have more such policies and monitor them to better weed out thieves.

>I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice.

Can you explain the moral justification for someone with a 400k salary to steal from their employer?

[consteval]

> Theft is a clear line

Right, and clear lines are reactionary and emotional, in my opinion.

> I dont see how Meta has any moral obligation to prevent exploit

They don't, companies have no moral obligations to do anything because it's impossible for them to have morals, because they aren't people. Which is why I never give companies the benefit of the doubt - that's reserved for entities capable of morality, in my mind.

> Can you explain the moral justification for someone with a 400k salary to steal from their employer

Sure. There's a young boy dying of a rare illness. The employee cannot make or buy the drug, but he knows a company has access to it. They refuse to give it up. So he steals the drug, saving the young boys life. Saving a life is more important than keeping the drug, therefore the situation is moral.

Or imagine a company is evil in some way, and theft might prevent them from doing something evil. Again, moral. This is also the rationale behind why killing is sometimes moral. If I'm about to get killed and I defend myself, I therefore killed to prevent something evil happening.

If a bunch of members of the Nazi party stole and fled the country, we wouldn't have had a holocaust. If Oppenheimer stole the secrets to the atomic bomb, hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians wouldn't have been killed. If someone stole the guns from the Columbian killers, that tragedy would've never happened.

I'm not saying that theft is morally justified in this particular circumstance. What I am saying is that generally it could be. And Meta handled this in a piss poor way that hurts them much more than the employees.

Really, I'm looking out for Meta. So, you're welcome Mr. Zuckerburg.

[s1artibartfast]

>I'm not saying that theft is morally justified in this particular circumstance. What I am saying is that generally it could be.

I was asking about this circumstance. It seemed like you were making the case that in this case it isn't bad, sorry if I was confused, and you agree it is bad.