During WW2, the Captain of U-boat 156 sunk a passenger liner. He then immediately set about rescuing survivors, and began broadcasting his position and the humanitarian nature of his mission on all available channels. An American B-24 in the area began to attack, despite the Captain's pleas they were killing their own men and the U-boat was trying to save lives. Afterward, U-boats were explicitly ordered to never render humanitarian aid under any circumstances (the Laconia order). The B-24 pilots were given medals for bravery.

In 1757, the British admiral John Byng was executed for failing to sail his ships into a storm. The enemy was besieging a fort, and although Byng engage the enemy fleet he didn't pursue and annihilate them - heedless of the danger - and thereby the relief troops were unable to reach the fort before it fell. This was considered a capital offensive despite being sound strategy (the loss of the fort was bad, the loss of Byng's fleet would've been crippling) - making the right call got a man shot by firing squad.

These two incidents are always in my head when people discuss morality or honor or any such topics. The truth is "moral" for most people means nothing so much as "Did a thing I like" and immoral means "Did a thing I didn't like". That B-24 crew attacks the enemy, which is good and therefore moral - that it was a supremely cowardly and bloodthirsty thing is irrelevant.

It's just how people are, I suppose. Well, most people. Some are genuinely good eggs, and those are the ones to befriend.

IMO you are reducing complicated situations into a false black and white in order to argue that people are ultimately immoral beings.

You use the benefit of perfect hindsight, then adopting a particular consequentialist utilitarian framework and saying 'this is all there is to morality', but morality has multiple (often conflicting) objectives. I think denying that any conflict exists is really the essence of evil.

In the theatre of war, soldiers do not have perfect information or context. People who purposefully disobey orders generally put the lives of their own comrades and countrymen at risk.

Loyalty to your fellow soldiers and putting a measure of trust in them is moral. So is courage in the face of danger (in the case of admiral captain).

Even if we adopt your utilitarian framework, in the case of the U-boat attack, you are presupposing that the lives saved by allowing the rescue to continue will outweigh all the future damage and people killed in the future if that U-boat is allowed to continue to operate unimpeded. How do you know that's true? How would the pilot know in that situation?

In the case of the admiral, how we know his strategic choice was superior to the Admiralty's? It seems like you're assuming that he made the clear right move and was punished for it.

> That B-24 crew attacks the enemy, which is good and therefore moral - that it was a supremely cowardly and bloodthirsty thing is irrelevant.

Note that they were ordered to attack despite that they reported survivors on board. Attribute the cowardice and bloodthirst appropriately in the command chain.

"I was just following orders" was not a valid excuse for the Nazis, and it isn't a valid excuse for our own men.

Depending on the specifics "I knew I'd be killed if I didn't do it and was afraid" is a perfectly valid excuse.

The reason it's not accepted is because it's too difficult to discern if it's a lie in order to (attempt to) avoid punishment.

Following an order to attack an enemy in time of war, when you'll probably die for not attacking them ... if you knew for certain the enemy wasn't trying to trick you, and were genuinely saving civilians, then of course you should disobey, ... maybe ...

Even if that particular captain was saving civilians, it may still ultimately save lives to sink the enemy ship; that's the "glory" of war. Taking a pragmatic approach then, sinkng the ship can be considered "moral".

Indeed taking such an a priori callous action could require a degree of bravery.

Given that they received medals, I'm not sure that's true in any practical sense.

OP is arguing the moral principle in reply to someone trying to justify a moral wrong, but OP's original point is that the practicalities observably trump morals, despite this being wrong. I don't think it's helpful for you to switch tack back to practicalities again on this branch.

Good stories. It inspires the thought that immorality "bubbles up" until the cost to address it (court-marshal a general, impeach a president, both destabilizing) is too high to pay. This is why leadership in a good society is moral, and broadly it means not just competence, but a willingness to accept the existence of evil in oneself, and in ones organization, and exercise appropriate amounts of self-restraint. (And the utter lack of this quality is what makes Trump so dangerous.)

I've been dealing with non-profits for most of my life. I started working with orchestras when I was about 7 or so, and these idealists (at least in the U.S.) are the absolute worst people to work for.

Almost every so-called idealist I've worked with is something close to a cultish sociopath. The non-profit world is full of these people where only true believers can fit in.

It's toxic. And the non-profits get a special status for their pathology that helps drive their insanity.

I remember doing a market research study for an orchestra that will remain nameless. The point of the study was to do an honest assessment of optimum price points. How to maximize either revenue or attendance.

I was serving on the board of this orchestra and did the study at my own expense. When I delivered the numbers, they didn't align with conventional wisdom.

And numbers weren't crazy. The bottom line was that people who buy season tickets are more hard-core supporters. They aren't looking for the cheap deal. They are looking for more opportunities to support the orchestra. The one-off people who just buy tickets at the door on a lark are much more price-sensitive.

So the solution is to ignore the bulk deal appeal that season-ticket buyers are getting offered. Raise the prices on those. And lower the at-door ticket prices. Lower the barrier to entry for casual users and raise the price for people who are going to pay whatever anyway. It's kind of obvious.

That's the math of the situation. Merely talking about these results and presenting them to the board got me kicked out. The orchestra did the exact opposite of that, and suffered the fate that the distribution said it would.

A few years later, they decided to try my idea. It worked. Who would've thunk?

Liberal, artsy, idealistic brats are no worse than conservative, religious, idealistic brats. They are all immune to logic and science, and just want to keep doing things that don't work because they sound good.

I think you should be cautious. People claiming to have a handle on all the world's problems are usually a part of the world's problems.

Thanks for sharing this story. Glad you were somewhat avenged in the end.

I recently read 'Quantum Night' by Robert J Sawyer, which explores psychopaths, people with an "inner life/monologue", and "philosopher zombies" -- people who don't have such an inner monologue and therefore are fairly manipulatable.

Part of the book's setting is that most people lack an inner monologue, a fair amount of people are psychopaths, and few people are "normal" non-psychopaths with inner monologues by a ratio of 4:2:1.

Even if you don't enjoy science fiction, it's an interesting read.

It's an interesting question - how many people do have those inner monologues?

I would recommend "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" if you're interested in this stuff. It's non-fiction but it's basically a story.

A "true" p-zombie would believe and claim that they have an inner monologue, and thus would be no more or less easy to manipulate than a "normal" person.

It may well be a good book, but it's an abuse of terminology to suggest that p-zombies are distinguishable from normal people by external characteristics and behavior.

It is a bit more nuanced in the book, and you should read it as the subject matter is so addressed toward your concern.