Integrity conflict
My coding tutor/partner will take on a freelance job from someone he knows in a few months. The job is a doing school mgmt software. I don't want to do it because I think I would not be acting with integrity. I don't like the idea of taking money or opportunity from a school.
The problem is that Chris depends on me ( my participation) to take the job. If I don't do it he will have to look for someone else or just not take it. I would probably lose my partnership with him.
I expressed concerns to him today and his answer was that he also hates school but that we would not be involved in any education stuff( which I don't fully believe). I want to know how to tell him, or if there's a flaw in my thinking.
I also want to be sure that I asked and thought about it well enough if I'm gonna summon the courage to refuse to work with him. I felt the need to talk to someone but, for various reasons, I suspect no one else understands just how conflicting.
Is my reasoning good? Are my conclusions the right ones? Is there another solution?
If you have ideas please tell me.
I made a tree for thinking more clearly.
The problem is that Chris depends on me ( my participation) to take the job. If I don't do it he will have to look for someone else or just not take it. I would probably lose my partnership with him.
I expressed concerns to him today and his answer was that he also hates school but that we would not be involved in any education stuff( which I don't fully believe). I want to know how to tell him, or if there's a flaw in my thinking.
I also want to be sure that I asked and thought about it well enough if I'm gonna summon the courage to refuse to work with him. I felt the need to talk to someone but, for various reasons, I suspect no one else understands just how conflicting.
Is my reasoning good? Are my conclusions the right ones? Is there another solution?
If you have ideas please tell me.
I made a tree for thinking more clearly.
what is the software? why does the school want custom software? there's tons of school/office/business/etc management software, of many varieties, already available.
What type of school? preschool, elementary, middle, high, university, adult immigrant English language classes, code bootcamp, trades (e.g. electrician, plumber, welder), etc.
how/why would you guys get the job? is it due to a social network relationship that Chris has with someone at the school?
how good are Chris' or your prospects to get other work? how are your finances? how well does the job pay?
how did you and Chris become partners?
If you think it's a weaker issue than some or all of those, but still bad, you could try to clarify the difference.
If it's fully as bad as those, but other people don't see it, you could try to explain what mistakes you think they're making.
Writing out more of your reasoning would help you think it through better, get criticism, be in a better position to communicate with Chris, etc.
Chris would get the job from a friend of his. It is a private middle school and it will help parents with their payments, the admins of the school too. I don't have to worry about money. It will be a setback but would I still live very well and I don't make my own living yet. I don't "need" it to live, I need it as practice and for the portfolio and future jobs with Chris.
My reasoning is that I would be helping people with something I think is despicable. I used to hate school.
The argument against that is that I won't change anything and I will harm my progress and Chris's because of it.
Apple is involved with China. So are a ton of other companies. There's very problematic stuff there, but I have an iPhone anyway. Samsung has big flaws too. Are any computer makers safe? Google is awful but I still use YouTube and gmail. Amazon has done some crony capitalism stuff. So have your bank and credit card company, I bet.
It's important to capitalism that, to a reasonable extent, people just focus on individual trades, in isolation, without spreading responsibility all over the web of commercial interaction, and just wonder is it to my benefit to make this trade? I think you wouldn't want a hardware store to ask what a person was going to use those tools for, judge the purpose, and refuse to sell tools to half the people. And meanwhile people visiting the store all refuse to buy any tools with any parts or assembly from China. And China is really not the only problematic country. Maybe we should avoid buying things that were shipped using any oil from a global oil market that helps fund Iran or Saudi Arabia? That's ~everything.
I know that those children won't have an impact on my life and I would not be doing any harm to them. But is the idea of claiming I despise something in principle and still benefit from it that I don't like. It feels like a rationalization, and this is what I fear.
If you believe schools are prisons, that's not just an isolated, easy-to-avoid problem. The way children are treated is a society-wide problem. Children are in schools because almost every parent voluntarily sends their children to school. And almost everybody supports this. It isn't some secret program where the government is kidnapping children and lying about it to society. People know what goes on in schools, and they believe it is good and children should go there. (They do think it has some problems that need to be fixed. But overall, most people agree with schools.)
The way children are treated in schools isn't isolated to schools either. They also get treated in similar ways at home by their parents. And if you don't like the way schools treat children, I assume you have issues with the way that the rest of society treats children too.
Are there any alternatives to school that you think currently exist and could be widely implemented right now? Homeschooling isn't better for many children. They are still controlled in many of the same ways they are in school. And many children actually prefer going to school over staying home with their parents all day – some of them actually get more freedom when they are in a group setting and away from their parents.
If you are going to be boycotting something, you should be clear on what you are boycotting and why. What exactly are you going to avoid working with? Just schools? What about community centers that have programs children are forced to attend? Pools with swimming lessons? Homeschooling programs? Will you work with parents who send their kids to schools? What about private businesses that support schools with donations? Or businesses with ageist policies against children?
It is a bit like being a vegan and thinking meat is murder, so not wanting to program a POS system for a restaurant that serves meat. How far with you take that? Will you work with businesses that serve meat in their cafeteria? Will you work with people who eat meat? Will you take a business meeting at a restaurant that serves meat? Will you work with businesses that sell leather furniture? Or businesses that incidentally sell some leather, like a bookstore that sells leather covered books and journals? Will you work with people who wear leather shoes? Will you take a meeting in an office with leather furniture?
If you want to go strongly against society in some way, you should think about it clearly. You should be able to clearly articulate exactly what you are avoiding and why.
And, also, if you are going to be strongly against schools existing right now, you should have in mind an alternative that is actually implementable today. You should be able to clearly explain the alternative, and how it can be implemented.
Just in general, if you are going to go against a major tradition in some way, it should be well thought out. You should understand what purpose the tradition has, what role it plays in people's lives, what problem it solves. How does it help people? What good to they get from it?
And you should have a clearly thought out alternative that also solves those problems. You should not just reject a major tradition without having something else to replace it, that can solve all the same problems. You should have a clear improvement if you are going to reject a traditions.
It isn't viable to do this with too many things in your life. It doesn't work well for people to just reject every tradition they think is bad in some way, and then just try to live "rationally".
Other things that worried me were more about preserving intellectual consistency. I assumed that eventually, I would publish my opinions on schooling and children, and I wanted to be consistent in the eyes of people who might read it.
This is just a part of it. I worried more that I was worrying more about my image than the actual problem(that I would have to think of ways to oppress children).
I had not actually thought about all the ways that my life is connected with social evils. I just assumed there was a limit but I don't know where that is.
For example, I could not teach. I would not like to be in that position because it would damage my psychology. I thought the same about the software project. My conflict arose when I couldn't picture myself actually being hurt much by the project, except for my credibility. But if the project does not damage me short or long term, worrying about my credibility is just vanity.
My biggest concern was my psychology. I feared that not picturing myself being hurt by the project(directly or indirectly) was just a rationalization for not thinking more about it. That's why I asked for help.
I don't want to go against society if it means being a hermit while not actually changing anything. I don't think I could change anything significantly about how society treats children. At least not without accomplishing other major things first.
My opinion is that boycotting is only worth it when you actually achieve something.
This is confusing. Do you see that you didn't answer most of what I already said?
I will answer now because they are good questions.
"you believe schools are like prisons. have you debated anyone on that claim?"
No
"organized your position and shared it publicly with essays or links?"
No
"if not, why are you very confident about an unusual, contrarian, unconventional claim?"
I don't have it in writing and I do know I must have a lot of errors. But as it is right now, the way I view the world is more consistent with the idea that society is wrong about children. And introspecting, I do see how I was damaged by school and society. Also, the traditions of society towards children are not written down and most parents and teachers rarely do the same amount of questioning I'm making.
There's some sort of large miscommunication going on. You didn't answer most of what I said in the other messages as well.
Chris is a friend of my brother. His passion is programming and he is more advanced than me. We think similarly about subjects like work ethic, personal development, and human progress. That's why he wanted to partner with me, he likes how I think. I like that he is committed and passionate about his craft.
Chris and I don't need the job to live.
Without me, Chris could not take the job and our partnership would be over most likely. Or he might do it anyway and hire someone instead of me.
This project would advance our careers. I want the money, practice, and experience. I don't need the money to live. It would help me get going on my career, though in the long run, I'll make it anyway.
The school is a private middle school. Chris knows the owner and that's why he has the opportunity.
The part about china and apple I did not consider it because my contribution is minimal and its very indirect. I don't have to think about the consequences for other people every time I use my iPhone. Just when I buy it. If there was a macro boycott against china I would participate in it thought it would be more symbolical than practical. Like voting for president. I know voting is basically useless for me. But it is in my interest that I promote voting and participate as much as it's convenient(once every 4 years).
I already listed my concerns above.
This is a tree with the most important ideas for me so far.
This isn't clarifying to me what's going on now or what happened in the past. You're using past tense again. What do you think now?
I think you are probably wrong to despise school. You despise it, but you don't have an idea for an alternative (at least, you don't according to your tree). You don't have a well thought out understanding of school, the role it plays in society, and what else could fill that role. So how can you be so sure about it to despise it? How can you be so sure it is evil when you don't understand it, and don't have a better idea?
If you think that school is maybe-evil but don't fully understand it, it makes sense to do things like avoid becoming a teacher, avoid starting a school, avoid any sort of long-term career that relies on schools. But I don't think it makes sense to fully boycott school. (For lots of reasons. Aside from not being sure you are right about it, you also don't even know what exactly to boycott. If you don't know what is bad about school, how can you be sure which other things are safe?)
One difference between school and nazi prison camps is that nazi prison camps can just be shut down. They don't need an alternative: the people in them should just be free. But just immediately shutting down schools and replacing them with nothing would hurt a lot of children (and also a lot of parents). Replacing them with existing homeschooling methods would also hurt a lot of children (who would *not* prefer it to school).
Another issue with schools is that they are already voluntary (at least in Canada and the US): homeschooling is legal. The government doesn't force people to send their kids to school. Neither do the teachers and principals. The people who choose to send kids to school are parents. So if schools are prisons, than their real jailers are their parents, not the schools, teachers, or principals.
(You could say that the choice to go to school should be given to children, not parents, but that is an entirely different issue than school. Schools are not the cause of the age laws. Schools are not the reason children are in the control of their parents.)
I am not sure exactly what you dislike about school. But in my own experience, school really isn't the cause of the problems. If you look at what people do when they homeschool, a lot of it is just as bad in the same ways. They just recreate school at home. And the people who don't do that, like unschoolers, also have really bad ideas about learning and education. They just deprive their children of lots of educational opportunities because they think they only other alternative is forcing it on them.
And most curriculums and courses are bad. Even ones that are made for adults don't actually do a good job of things like teaching for understanding, breaking things down, explaining them, etc. People don't understand what learning even is or how it works, so they don't know how to create good courses. They don't know how to learn things well or how to teach things well.
People have bad ideas about learning/education and bad ideas about children. This isn't school's fault. School didn't cause or create these ideas. But if you take a society that sucks at both education AND at dealing with children, and then you look at what system is set up to educate children... It makes sense that it's not going to be very good.
I asked:
In other words, there's a dilemma: there's the potential for Farouk to be asked to directly make children's lives worse (in his judgment), and not just indirectly by being "involved" with the school.
Given what Farouk said, I suggest a closer analogy would be writing management software for a factory farm, where the owners might end up asking you to add a feature to help them make the chicken cages smaller.
I imagine the decision to develop such a feature would be a "no" for vegans, while developing a POS system for a restaurant might be less clear cut.
Rather than working on his ideas for a replacement for the entire school system, I think it would be more helpful for Farouk to think through the practical dilemma above: what would he do if he took the job and were asked to add features that he thought would directly harm children? I think his answer to that dilemma will help him decide what to do, whereas having (or not having) answers to what to do with schooling in general will not.
I am open to criticism of course.
My opposition to school is more long-term and abstract, I know that I would like to live in a world where children are freer, but that is not one of the alternatives.
I can list the reasons why being a teacher is bad and why teachers are harming others and themselves, but my dilemma is not that one.
My problem was not differentiating between opposing the school system with doing something that is connected to it. For example, I advocate for capitalism but buy things from crony companies like Amazon, as Eliot pointed out. I don't think this makes me a hypocrite because I'm choosing the best of two bad options (to buy from them or isolate from society). If there were a third option, like an amazon that was just as good as the real one without the cronyism, I would buy from them.
You are right. I should have communicated my dilemma the way you did.
"I think it would be more helpful for Farouk to think through the practical dilemma above: what would he do if he took the job and were asked to add features that he thought would directly harm children?"
Yes because my main conflict is about the things that I'd have to think and do in the job that could damage my psychology and self-trust. Obvious things like teaching or opening a school are easy for me to reject. More indirect things are trickier. How would I even know if I'm making children's experiences worse? And if I were but not by much, should I refuse to do it or ignore it?
In the case that I don't hurt the children but still work with the school. Would it make me a hypocrite if I criticize schools but take their money?
I think that one of the mistakes I'm making is thinking that schools are bad intrinsically, without context and so I conclude "its immoral to cooperate with one".
I didn't say – and don't believe – that Farouk needs to work on ideas for a replacement of the entire school system. The point was for him to better consider if his current ideas about the school system are even correct. In order for him to act with integrity, he needs to have a better understanding of what he even believes is right or wrong.
My own belief is that school is *not* the same as Nazi Prison camps. One of the relevant issues is that he doesn't have a better alternative in mind. He doesn't have an understanding of the purpose schools serve and what could replace them. This is very different from Nazi Prison camps: Nazi Prison camps don't *need* a replacement and should just be shut down.
So it actually makes sense to do something like refuse to work with Nazi Prison Camps at all, in any way, even if you aren't sure if what you are doing will have a direct negative affect on the prisoners. Because working with the prison camp at all will legitimize its existence, and will help it continue to exist.
I think that Farouk was treating schools in this same way – thinking of them as similar to prison camps, which should just be abolished with no replacement. So I think it would be valuable for him to clarify whether he actually *does* believe that about schools. He needs to have a better idea of the role that school plays in society and in hurting children – and what other things in society hurt children in ways he disagrees with – if he wants to be able to better make individual decisions about what to avoid or boycott.
Once he has a better idea of which ways children are actually being hurt in society, and by whom, then he will be better able to make the kinds of decisions you are advocating: he will be able to look at his actions and figure out what kind of impact they actually have, if he is going to be contributing to something that is making people's (or children's) lives worse in some way, if he is acting counter to his values, etc.
So basically I think you need to zoom out and have some idea of what the forest looks like, and what a tree is, before you zoom in and try to focus too much on any one individual tree.
(From what I've read so far, I think his main concern wasn't actually that he thought his actions would make society worse or hurt children in any way. I think he was more concerned with how it would look to others, in a second-handed way. So that is another issue he could address.)
Another thing to note on this issue: I don't think that people need to do this with everything in their lives. You don't need to put a bunch of effort into figuring out your beliefs on every single issue, and how to always act with integrity & act according to your beliefs with each issue. I think that's a rationalist way to try to live your life, and won't even work. You *can't* do it with every issue. If you think you are doing that with every issue, you are fooling yourself.
But if you are going to try to go against the majority of society in some major way, then you *should* put some thought into *that*. If you have decided that something the majority of people are doing with their lives in hugely immoral in a way that you need to personally boycott, then you should have a good understanding of what you are doing and why, which requires both understanding the tradition and having a better idea for what people should be doing instead.
(In general, traditions shouldn't be rejected without a lot of thought & understanding. If you don't think about it, and understand the tradition, how do you know your way is actually right, and is actually an improvement on the tradition? Another issue is that you are going to be making your life a lot harder in certain ways if you are rejecting major social traditions. Understanding exactly which parts you are rejecting and why will give you more clarity and make it easier to make decisions about. And if you are going to act in ways that are counter to society and difficult for you, you should put a lot of thought into it before choosing that path.)
"Why did you think in the past that you'd answered stuff that you hadn't?"
Because I read the questions and then wrote the answer. That's how I perceived it.
"What happened there and what are you going to do to solve that problem?"
I got distracted answering the other messages. I assumed that the information I provided was enough. I did not make an effort to make sure you understood. I just threw it out there and assumed that you had.
Right now all I can do is answer the questions one by one:
1 you believe schools are like prisons. have you debated anyone on that claim?
no
2 organized your position and shared it publicly with essays or links?
no
3 if not, why are you very confident about an unusual, contrarian, unconventional claim?
Because the way I see the world is consistent with that claim. I don't have any philosophical position written down yet.
4 what is the software?
6 What type of school?
7 how/why would you guys get the job? is it due to a social network relationship that Chris has with someone at the school?
8 how good are Chris' or your prospects to get other work?
Chris and I can get other jobs. But if he does not do that one, it will not be in his interest anymore to keep teaching me. Which means that it will affect me more than him.
9 how are your finances? how well does the job pay?
I don't have money and I live with my parents. If I did not get any job in the next 3-4 months, I would go take a waiter job until I get one.
I don't know how well it pays.
10 how did you and Chris become partners?
Chris is a friend of my brother, he likes my personal philosophy and work ethic.
11 What else will you boycott?
I don't know yet.
12 Where will it end?
I don't know
13 What seems clean to you?
Anything that does not corrupt my mind, like teaching, directly helping left-wing organizations increase their influence, or helping people sell snake oil. For all of those, the kind of thinking I would have to do to be successful at the job would require evasion, submission, or even aggression. But I would not mind working for a company that also has some government contracts. In that case, the consequences are too distant for me to care.
I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of Elliot's original questions. He was providing them as jumping off points for ways that you could think about the issue, things that you could consider. They weren't assignments or things that were meant for you to answer for his benefit or to his satisfaction.
I think you are also currently misunderstanding his continued talking about this issue. His message wasn't asking you to go back through the original questions and answer them. It was asking about what went wrong: why you didn't initially engage with the help he tried to offer you, and why you thought you had answered the questions when you hadn't.
Again, I think that is him making an effort to get you to think about the problem and try to figure out what is going on for yourself. Like, for you to figure out what the problem even is, and what steps you can take to solve it so that you can have better discussions. It's not an assignment where you are supposed to just answer the questions to his satisfaction.
I think you might be reading his messages in a kind of homework-type way, where you are trying to figure out the correct answers that he wants and how to give them to him, or trying to make sure you provide an answer to each thing in a list. But I don't think that's what he is asking for.
I don't think it would make society worse. I was worried about my image, like a libertarian that would reject govt money for fear of being ostracised by the community. Then i caught that and tried to correct it by thinking about what consequences my actions would bring.
I've been dealing with this issue for a few weeks and I did not want to ask until I actually had a conflict. My intuition was that there was nothing wrong, that it was not like working for the Nazis. But i kept thinking that this was just an evasion, that I did not wanted to ask and discuss it for fear of finding out that it would indeed damage me(not my social image) and having to reject it. Because I was afraid I was not thinking it through correctly, I decided to share it.
If I'll do it, i want to know that there's nothing wrong with it. If there were something wrong (something that would damage me) i want to know it. If we don't do the job, its still worth knowing the right choice and the reasons for choosing it.
"So basically I think you need to zoom out and have some idea of what the forest looks like, and what a tree is before you zoom in and try to focus too much on any one individual tree."
For the record, I agreed with
>>"I think it would be more helpful for Farouk to think through the practical dilemma above: what would he do if he took the job and were asked to add features that he thought would directly harm children?"
Yes because my main conflict is about the things that I'd have to think and do in the job that could damage my psychology and self-trust. Obvious things like teaching or opening a school are easy for me to reject. More indirect things are trickier. How would I even know if I'm making children's experiences worse? And if I were but not by much, should I refuse to do it or ignore it?<<
I still agree that what Firebench said there is the actual issue.
The questions (your's, Firebench and ingracke) have made me realize how much I still need to consider before taking a position. I feel uncomfortable leaving the discussion unfinished. I fear i may rationalize with ideas like "well I've got permission". I would like to conclude the topic of my situation and leave the more abstract details and considerations for later on when I'm learning about tcs and politics and all that. I can't get into that right now.
2 is true
3 is true that struggle with integrity, but I do want to answer the question. I'm trying to introspect and what I've answered is what I concluded. If you tell me why you think i have not answered it would help me find out if I'm rationalizing.
4 Subconsciously it is true that I have reactions that are anti criticism. At a conscious level, understand why I need it. I posted my question because i was detecting an aversion to criticism and i did not want to rationalize it.
5 is false. I don't want the unearned. I don't want to be treated unjustly and i don't want sympathy or pity or that people blind themselves to my inadequacies. I don't want any of that. If I want help from fi on learning i will make sure that I deserve it. I don't want to waste people's time. If i want something but I can't "pay" for it yet, ill accept that as a fact of reality and i'll make an effort to act accordingly.
I agree that i have made it hard to have a conversation with me. I confuse myself a lot and try to deflect questions and have secondhanded reactions and i worry to much into making the right impression.
What do you think is the right way to act here? What i want to do is to answer your question, pause the conversations and go back to practicing breaking things down and learning the basic things.
Your reaction of trying to point-blank, flat-out correct me re 5 (unearned) by asserting my claim is false is itself an attempt to gain the unearned. You don't know what you're talking about; I do; I took actions to earn and get that knowledge; you didn't.
This is another example of wanting the unearned. You don't understand why you need criticism well. You haven't taken adequate steps to earn or gain that understanding.
There are over 10 more examples re unearned in this thread. I think you, like most people, are so used to making claims that you haven't earned that you assume everyone else does too; I don't; I knew what I was saying, in detail, before saying it.
"Your reaction of trying to point-blank, flat-out correct me re 5 (unearned) by asserting my claim is false is itself an attempt to gain the unearned."
I agree. I've heard and read some of that concept in Rand but i have not actually broken it down and applied it to many different concrete situations. I should not have just dismissed the idea that i want the unearned. I do not want to want the unearned. If it is a mistake, I want to get rid of it.
"I think you, like most people, are so used to making claims that you haven't earned that you assume everyone else does too; I don't; I knew what I was saying, in detail, before saying it."
I believe you. But I can't really grasp it, its like if you know calculus and i only know basic algebra. You see things i can't. What can i do to build integrity? And how can I stop wanting the unearned?
Thinking it (superficially) sounds bad is not the same thing as actually wanting to change or to be a type of person – that takes knowledge, like about what it is you do and don't want to be and why. You're claiming to have a want that you have not earned. It's the same error again.
Similarly, planning to learn or write philosophy later is wanting the unearned – it's trying to think of yourself as b an intellectual before you earned that. You have nothing significant to say currently, can't predict the future growth of your knowledge, and don't know in advance what you would or should do with knowledge if you did get some. Planning or expecting to be great, before earning it, would be the same error.
Similarly, the original topic of this thread was wanting to be especially principled – better than other people – without having done what it takes to earn it. And when I proposed some leads you could work on, you didn't do much with them. You want the status of being different than and better than convention, and you want it now not later after you get around to learning philosophy. But actually trying to be unconventional before earning it is worse than being conventional.
But nothing you did is unusually bad. None of it stands out. It isn't worse than other people overall. And if you can hear this and think it over and remember it, that'd be something good you're doing that most people would fail at.
The big picture of the way forward is to stop thinking of yourself in terms of what you may or may not do later (e.g. become a philosopher, scholar or intellectual). Make it a part of your life now – or don't consider it part of your life. You don't know what you'll do in the future, and you don't know what you'll succeed at (or how much) even if you do give it a try. If you do work on rationality/philosophy stuff regularly, you can find some learning activities that I've already posted on Basecamp and others on my blog.
"wanting to change or to be a type of person – that takes knowledge, like about what it is you do and don't want to be and why."
I think I know that in order to get the things I want in life, I'll have to change. I have to revisit everything I think about myself and the world and if something is not serving me, drop it.
Why do you think I don't have a genuine desire to change? I ask because I do think I want to change and if I disagree with you I assume that you are right in a way I cant see.
"Planning or expecting to be great, before earning it, would be the same error."
The idea that i could do great things is what motivates and excites me about my future. It is the only reason to pursue my goals doggedly.
Do you mean that I can't have ambition? Or is it more like "you could, but you should not take for granted that you will do great things, because you don't know much about how to live"?
This has been sobering. I'll keep practicing.