Comments on: The honest truth about why we cheat for others Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Albuquerque Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:59:08 +0000 Cheating can be conscious our subtle…individual or group, when people look the other way, sometimes for self protection or to avoid having to do something about it. The general populace who lived near the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, spouses married to someone who abuses their child(ren), those living where drugs are sold blatantly, people who witness a crime, government whistle blowers, or even cheating in class. Self preservation is a powerful motive; so is deferring accountability, and both are readily rationalized.[everyone is doing it, or I was told to.] THat said, is not an excuse. Keep in mind cheating of any kind will bounce back and hit you, and guilt ruins the enjoyment of life, if you have a conscience.

By: AaronX.Situ Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:33:51 +0000 Interesting topic, but I don’t agree that altruism is the sole reason as to why people will still cheat even if they don’t benefit from the cheat. I think that it just because the benefit they get is somewhat intangible, the cheat might benefit the cheater emotionally, psychologically, or socially instead of physically. Looking at the example the author provided, even if Jennifer will not get any extra bonuses or raises because she did a good job by redoing her report, she might still do it solely because the respect and praise she will receive from her team by bring them extra bonuses and raises. Also, check out “Freakonomics” by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. In chapter one of the book, the authors wrote about why and what’s the incentive for teachers and sumo wrestlers cheat, which I believe is a counter-example to cheats are done because of altruistic motive.

By: running Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:33:36 +0000 its simply a natural human need for contentment in some, the more they get, the more they want, to fill a never filled emptyness, selfness ?

By: Dafydd Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:49:49 +0000 What you should look at is systems where I cheat entirely for your benefit, and you cheat entirely for mine. Like could this seem in any way like the big four accountancy firms?

When we cheat on behalf of others we don’t have the same guilt issues, which is what limits our cheating.

This is also disippated in a group. Look at SS soldiers in the holocaust, what were at the beginning ordinary young men could find it in themselves to commit acts of the worst barbarity. Being part of the group was an essential part of this. We have a great need to be accepted by the group and initiation, like fiddling a clients report, or some act of cruelty, is very much a part of spreading the guilt amongst us all in corrupt organisations.

By: Gillyp Mon, 11 Jun 2012 06:21:12 +0000 A very thought provoking post OneOfTheSheep.

By: OneOfTheSheep Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:50:47 +0000 Excellent article, observations and conclusions.

I would ask each to take these concepts and apply them to two systems that affect each and every one of us every day. These are our political and legal systems.

With each election the percentage of those in or “out of” our legal system occupy a greater percentage of our elective offices. Is it any surprise that actions and inactions of such elected officials tend, over time. to favor the interests of the legal profession over those of “we, the [other] people” when such interests conflict?

It never ceases to amaze me that NO ONE has ever effectively challenged the fact that “our” Supreme Court Justices have unilaterally thrown off the yoke of public accountability. Only in the last century have our judiciary at the federal, state and local levels made public decisions which render the very oaths of office mandatory by statute before assuming the robes of office (and exercising associated power) meaningless.

They have proclaimed themselves immune from prosecution for incompetence AND corruption. They may misinterpret the law and/or misuse the law, whether inadvertent or through conscious intent and impunity. NO ONE to date has challenged their right to do this. NO ONE has complained of the obvious conflict between the interest(s) of the judiciary and the public interest they are sworn to uphold and protect. It is the effective “law of the land” today that so long as any action by any judge can be in the slightest construed as having been done “in the course of their official duties”, they are wholly and entirely unaccountable to anyone anywhere for any moral or financial damage they do.

The most fundamental basis of our legal system is that each of us must have a remedy for injustice done. What is that remedy when there is but a single jurisdiction in which a given probate must be filed, when the judge in charge consciously refuses to do his/her duty under the various laws clearly applicable, and when he/she cannot be held legally or financially responsible for such damages as result?

As this article explains so well, judges are much more likely to act to protect other judges than to act to apply the law uniformly and clearly. Everyone is familiar with the judicial presumption that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and yet if a law is genuinely unclear does not “justice” demand that each decision each time it is examined in court make it MORE clear and not LESS clear?

When the words so carefully chosen and enacted by our elected representatives mean ONLY “what a judge says they mean”, such meaning is no longer sufficiently clear as to have a predictable “outcome” when brought before a court of competent jurisdiction. A law that is not predictable is useless as guidance, but it is fertile ground for the ever-increasing number of lawyers that infest and weaken our our society like termites and personally and collectively profit from such professional malfeasance. They even argue as to whether such is “malfeasance” or “misfeasance”, as if the result is different.

I live where the “word” was out (impossible to prove, of course) not to come into court with an attorney from “outside” if you wanted any hope of a favorable decision. This means, of course, that “justice” is no longer what adopted law requires. No attorney dare argue the meaning of any law on the books if such would result in an outcome the judge in charge does not want. Wherever and whenever the “rule of law” is replaced by a “rule of men”, such unrestrained power will corrupt both inevitably and absolutely.

Increasingly the judiciary of our society no longer concerns itself with truth and justice, such as who did what FIRST. These things lurk deep in the details that take time to present and consider. The easy way, all too common, is to look for and make decisions based on procedural error such as arbitrary statutes of limitation or the words of description in a complaint such that obvious and wrongful acts are ultimately unpunished or even rewarded. What kind of a “message” does THAT send to our children? Is THAT to be our legacy to them?

For approaching ten years as an estate executor and heir I have yet to have access to a jury of my peers. I have yet to gain access to a judge untainted by the influence of a local bank that has repeatedly and consistently violated their fiduciary duties as a Guardian?

For me, “the law(s)”, “remedy”, an “impartial court”, and “jury of one’s peers” have proven but illusions without substance, goals to date unachievable with far more dedication and financial assets than the average citizen can or will bring to bear.

Such malignancy as the author has so well speculated about may well already be terminal to the society our forefathers sought to create. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, I can only conclude that America has proven to be asleep at the wheel.

By: Ian_Kemmish Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:08:41 +0000 The experiments are certainly interesting (and perhaps reflect the old adage of “honour amongst thieves” who scratch each others’ backs). However, the original situation seems far more clear cut: whether the group is intrinsically more or less inclined to dishonesty seems almost irrelevant: a group is more easily manipulated.

indeed, I can think of no reason for the employees in question to be appraised as a group (if that is indeed the case; it’s not something I saw during my time in business), other than to facilitate manipulation. It’s less gory than the old Roman punishment of decimation, but done with the same purpose and the same effect. If you want to regulate anything, regulate that.