In soccer diving is not punished if the referee doesn’t see it, even if three TV cameras captured every detail. Are soccer fans wrong in being disgusted by such diving?
There is no law against slamming the door close before the person behind you can enter. Are people wrong in believing that such behavior is rude?
I think the belief that only following rules is enough to earn the right to never be perceived as an asshole is fundamentally flawed. There is nothing wrong with being disgusted by Sam’s actions, even if there weren’t any rules telling him not to do what he did.
What he did was repugnant and part of the experiment. My reaction here is also part of the experiment.
> In soccer diving is not punished if the referee doesn’t see it, even if three TV cameras captured every detail. Are soccer fans wrong in being disgusted by such diving?
So why do they keep letting players do that? Are they requested not to do that? If so, then it is slightly different from Sam's situation. It would be similar if Jonathan had requested people not to do what Sam did. Not punished != not a rule.
> There is no law against slamming the door close before the person behind you can enter. Are people wrong in believing that such behavior is rude?
You shouldn't assume such behavior has ill intentions. If you don't like it, ask the person to stop doing it. Then and only then if he/she keeps doing it, you can call him an asshole.
Someone is not an asshole simply for doing something you don't like. You have to dig into the intentions.
My examples are merely illustrative and not meant to be analogous to the situation at hand. I want to illustrate that there is a difference between being disgusted by something and whether or not there is an explicit rule. There luckily aren’t as many rules as there are behaviors that are considered repugnant by someone. I’m quite happy about that.
In the case of the door, just imagine you had eye contact with the person who slammed the door and he grinned. At that point I’m perfectly willing to infer the intention and consider the behavior rude.
Sam Odio has written a lot about his intentions, those aren’t really the issue. They are public and clear and I’m disgusted by them. Simple as that. “But it’s an experiment” completely misses the point.
> There luckily aren’t as many rules as there are behaviors that are considered repugnant by someone. I’m quite happy about that.
And the reason for that is because things considered repugnant by some may not be to others!
> In the case of the door, just imagine you had eye contact with the person who slammed the door and he grinned. At that point I’m perfectly willing to infer the intention and consider the behavior rude.
You'd still be guessing. Confront him. Unless he's mentally retarded you'd probably get a clear response from him if you did so. Don't be passive aggressive.
If you donated money and Sam used them in ways you did not approve of, then you can consider his actions repugnant.
From an outside perspective, I do not find his actions repugnant. I believe his re-appropriation of the money to be better than buying coffee for others and really there was no indication that people would respond so negatively to money helping save the children...
Imagine if I were walking down the street and there is this box filled with cash right next to a ferris wheel, implying (to most people) that I should take this generously donated money and experience the ferris wheel for free. However I instead take that money and give it to some homeless people.
To the people who donated money thinking it would pay for the ferris wheel, I'm an asshole. To others, it's a much grayer area depending on whether or not ferris wheel is better than homeless people.
Not only did Sam not break explicit rules, but he didn't do something universally repugnant. If he had actually bought and kept an iPad, that would probably be universally repugnant. Coffee for strangers >> iPad for self. But Coffee for strangers > saving the children? Gray area. If you don't want the money to be donated to third world children, then just ask. But if you don't make such clear requests then you can't claim such an alternative outcome (which to some is actually a better use of the money) is an asshole move.
I prefer that the un-earmarked money be given to starving children instead of tired Americans. Therefore, I do not find Sam's actions disgusting. In fact, I find them honorable.
Hitler probably didn't like Americans (for attacking him), that doesn't make Americans assholes just because the Americans had an aggressive attitude.
There is no law against slamming the door close before the person behind you can enter. Are people wrong in believing that such behavior is rude?
I think the belief that only following rules is enough to earn the right to never be perceived as an asshole is fundamentally flawed. There is nothing wrong with being disgusted by Sam’s actions, even if there weren’t any rules telling him not to do what he did.
What he did was repugnant and part of the experiment. My reaction here is also part of the experiment.