[abbazabba]

I want to play devils advocate here.

Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified. Therefore, if they follow this lifestyle for every decision that comes about, they'll be in some sense richer, or more optimal, than people who don't take all but one.

In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them?

I'm curious if anyone thinks this is neither right nor wrong?

[rquantz]

I want to play devils advocate here.

You seem to be pretty much in line with most of the people commenting here, who largely assume there are methodological problems with the studies rather than accepting the findings that wealth causes moral decay.

Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified.

Yes, this could account for why that person is wealthier. But it is not moral behavior. Someone who says "the rules do not strictly prohibit me from taking as much candy from the children as I feel like, therefore I will do so" is a cancer on society, someone who takes as much as they can get away with, everyone else be damned.

In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them?

Because there are other people, and you should consider their needs and wants in addition to your own.

[abbazabba]

Thanks for the insight. But why is taking a little bit more here and there considered immoral? Isn't it the fault of the people setting the specifications, or rules, or laws for failing to be specific?

Is there anyone else that shares my thoughts?

[rquantz]

Because morality and law (and/or rules) do not intersect perfectly. If murder were legal, would it not be my fault if I killed someone?

[eli_gottlieb]

Devil is right. You're a psychopath, by which I mean that you appear to have not thought about the issue, or you lack many of the "limiting factors" built into ordinary people's senses of decency, morality, and value.

For instance, if I were to rationally maximize my net worth, I would spend 100-hour workweeks at Goldman Sachs becoming King of the Quants. Why don't I do so? Don't I want to be wealthy?

Well, sure, I like being financially secure, but working 100-hour workweeks and being involved in finance capitalism would actually make me so damn miserable I'd want to kill myself. And that's even before we talk about the damage I'd be doing to my closest relationships and the world at large through this "optimal" plan to get rich through genius and hard work!