On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Wolfgang Romey hier@wolfgangromey.de wrote:
I will put something on top of it because I am getting angry: Unfortunately Luke is or is becoming a Ethics-Extremist. Extremism allways does harm.
i've since discovered a more "understandable" version of the bill of ethics, known as the titanian's "code of honour". it boils down to "we do no harm; we always do good; the code applies at all times, no exceptions; everyone knows the code".
sticking to an ethical code 100% is *really tough* wolfgang, even when the code says (in essence), "we do no harm". now, note that it does NOT say "we keep everybody HAPPY". studies have repeatedly shown that using "happiness" as a metric results in pathological group behaviour.
one other aspect of the titanian's code of honour is: constructive feedback should always be sought and, if provided, NEVER denied.
so i appreciate your perspective, wolfgang, but bear in mind that someone who is *aware* of the Bill of Ethics should *never* be "causing harm".
bear in mind, though that people (or entities) who (or which) are not self-aware are *automatically* excluded from the protections of the Bill of Ethics.
So it is hurting the project (and Lukes health). Out of his extremism he uses an extreme language. He calls for example enterprises and people criminal, which never have broken any law. One could write, that have conducted completely wrong, but calling them criminal is burning bridges. This extreme language is one of the reasons for the heated discussion on the list.
apologies, wolfgang, but denial of the facts - even complex ones - doesn't help. i freely admit that i have no idea how to present these things to people without them getting extremely upset. perhaps you could advise on how the perspective that i have should be presented... but bear in mind that neither the analysis nor the conclusions nor the ethics themselves on which i base the perspective that i hold are up for debate or negotiable.
so many people compromise on things that really do matter, it's up to me to say "no" and to *find* a way.
If Luke is so extrem about ethics, how can he distribute hardware at all? There is no ethical hardware: they get gold and/or other material from warlords or other criminals, the working conditions are ruining the health of the workers, chip-production does great harm to the enviroment, ...
*sigh* i know. i can't tackle everything at once, so i had to make a decision on what - at the *current* level of resources - *can* be tackled.
other issues will be tackled later, *once* the power and influence has extended to that level.
One last example: Luke hates Fairphone too
did you know that experiencing hate *literally* causes your body to create toxins with similar chemical properties to snake venom? knowing this to be the case, and not wishing to (literally) poison myself, we may logically conclude your observation to be false.
and calls them a criminal enterprise.
if they've distributed copyright-violating code, and haven't fixed that, then yes. do you deny that they've distributed copyright-violating code in the past?
So for me there are limits in being ethical. You can be ethical in only part of your life.
we all make choices, wolfgang. there are so many people in the world who choose to compromise, who choose an ordinary and "mundane" existence, i am intelligent enough to realise that i would be doing myself and the world a huge dis-service to make the compromises that you are (indirectly) implying.
i'm sure you've heard this hilarious quote before:
the reasonable man adapts himself to the world the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
after learning that the definition of "reasonable" is literally "reason-able" as in "has the ability to reason", i actually disagree with the _literal_ meaning of this quote, but i still like it anyway and i know what it's getting at.
l.