Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: MOA without guards and sales people? Try the Honesty Cafe!

Expand Messages
  • John
    I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of Henry Sy being one of us ... :) ________________________________ From: jose mario sison
    Message 1 of 76 , Nov 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of Henry Sy being "one of us"... :)




      ________________________________
      From: jose mario sison <joma_sison@...>
      To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2008 10:30:31 AM
      Subject: Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: MOA without guards and sales people? Try the Honesty Cafe!


      but, what if, Henry Sy is "one of us"? Do we fall on the mob mentality?


      John <harmless168@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      That's nice. But is it located in a small town where everyone knows everyone else? If so, then guilt and shame are even greater motivators to pay for it, because you KNOW the person who owns the store.

      In the case of MOA, people will just think that Henry Sy and Co are rich enough not to notice (not knowing that the goods on display aren't even owned by Henry Sy and Co).

      ____________ _________ _________ __
      From: eduardo barot
      To: pinoy_atheists@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2008 7:57:11 AM
      Subject: Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: MOA without guards and sales people? Try the Honesty Cafe!

      There is a real life MOA scenario that goes on almost everyday.

      But its in Batanes.

      In Batanes, they have this makeshift Karinderya known as the "Honesty Cafe".. When you go in, there is food on the table with a pricelist conspicuously posted on the wall. You eat your fill and pay for what you took. There are no people in the cafe to watch over you because they are busy fishing or planting. They're just there early mornings to cook and evenings to get the day's earnings.

      So far I've heard no complaints of theft or underpayment.

      --- On Fri, 10/31/08, georgewheflin wrote:
      From: georgewheflin
      Subject: [pinoy_atheists] Re: For the purpose of expanding our understanding of morality
      To: pinoy_atheists@ yahoogroups. com
      Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 6:49 AM

      The point of the MOA scenario is that, people need policing in order

      to remain good and not that they remain good because of morality,

      religion or fear of god per se.

      --- In pinoy_atheists@ yahoogroups. com, "Pecier Decierdo"

      wrote:

      >

      >

      > Hi Joma,

      >

      > Interesting scenario you've got there and very interesting questions.

      > I think you've nailed down the problem.

      >

      > Now, this is my opinion; from a purely rational point of view, there

      > is no reason to expect that MOA won't be sacked after a month. A

      > purely rational being would find no reason to abide by the

      > non-rational concepts of 'fairness',' justice' and 'equality'. The

      > only 'equality' it will ever recognize is of the 1+1=2 type. Hence, I

      > believe, a purely rational person would just pick up what she needs

      > from MOA and go out without even paying. Of course, that is if;

      >

      > 1. That person won't become wanted by the law (there are no

      > surveillance cameras around).

      > 2. There will be no major economic repercussion, especially on the

      > person stealing; meaning, this person won't loose anything in case SM

      > closes up because of a major loss caused by the spree.

      >

      > But I suppose these conditions are already part of the problem.

      >

      > But we're not talking of a calculating machine here. We are not

      > talking about a damned robot. We are talking about a human being - a

      > social, political, moral and emotional animal.

      >

      > Socially, a human being will be ashamed not to pay; she has an inner

      > social conscience which causes in her a great feeling of guilt and

      > shame whenever she has done something that her society is not pleased

      > with.

      >

      > Politically, she will desire greater social order (although how to

      > achieve this a matter of great disagreement if not war), and if

      > everybody is allowed to do what they want, this order will be lost.

      >

      > Morally, she has a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', an inner conscience

      > that follows that Golden Rule. She cannot stand cold watching her

      > fellow human beings getting brutally killed; she cannot calculate

      > about probabilities of survival calmly while watching a fellow human

      > drowning; she cannot look straight at the body of a live person being

      > opened unless trained properly (as in a surgeon or nurse); all this

      > because she cannot help but feel what her fellow human beings are

      > feeling, and all this because deep inside her she has a tendency to

      > follow that golden rule whenever she can.

      >

      > And finally, putting the keystone last, emotionally, a human being

      > cannot help but taint her evaluation of the world with her very own

      > feelings - guilt, love, pride, shame, pity, a sense of contentment,

      > hatred, remorse, anger, regret, jubilation, empathy and so on and so

      > forth.

      >

      > Emotions, I believe, are the key to the moral precepts of human

      > beings; our very own desires are the foundations of our morality. This

      > is I think why we feel greater sympathy for the villain whose evil

      > deeds spring from a misappropriated emotional pain than from one whose

      > evil deeds spring from sheer wickedness. And this, I think, is why

      > morality is such a difficult topic � because it is not just

      > non-rational, it is beyond reason.

      >

      > -Pecier

      >

      >

      >

      >

      > --- In pinoy_atheists@ yahoogroups. com, jose mario sison

      > wrote:

      > >

      > > Hi

      > > Thanks for the explanation - but again, is it expected that an

      > individual (or community) remain good inspite of being unaccountable

      > to any consequences of his action?

      > >

      > > js.

      > >

      > > georgewheflin wrote:

      > > otherwise means, the opposite of remaining good in spite

      > of being

      > > unaccountable to any of and consequences of your actions.

      > >

      > > --- In pinoy_atheists@ yahoogroups. com, jose mario sison

      > > wrote:

      > > >

      > > > would we neccesarily remain good than otherwise?

      > > >

      > > > Following your question; suppose one morning you read in the

      > > morning papers,

      > > >

      > > > "The Mall of Asia will be open to public today, but with a twist.

      > > For one month, starting today, all shops will be open but nobody will

      > > be manning them. All items will be price tagged and you, our precious

      > > customers, may buy it at your leisure. The prices are now lower than

      > > the usual, without the contribution of the salesperson, guards,

      > > cleaning staff and the like. You may shop at your convenience and we

      > > call on your conscience to pay the right price and take the right item

      > > of your purchase"

      > > >

      > > > Is it fair to expect that in less than one month, all the contents

      > > of MOA will be wipe out including the parts of the building (doors,

      > > airconditioning units, cables, display counters and even maniquins)?

      > > >

      > > >

      > > >

      > > >

      > > > georgewheflin wrote:

      > > > In line with the subject of this post, i wish to ask this

      > > question and

      > > > hopefully receive new ideas to explain the concept and origin of

      > > > morality, justice and human nature.

      > > >

      > > > the question is as follows:

      > > >

      > > > Given you are allowed to do anything you want to other people,

      and can

      > > > get away from the responsibility of receiving punishment or

      penalties

      > > > from society due to the repercussion of your acts, why then its

      > > > necessary to remain good than otherwise?

      > > >

      > > >

      > > >

      > > >

      > > >

      > > >

      > > >

      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      > > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      > >

      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ------------ --------- --------- ------

      http://www.philippi neatheists. org/Yahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ------------ --------- --------- ------

      http://www.philippi neatheists. org/Yahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • lawrence miguel
      The honesty cafe is like the bagel (bread) business described in the book Freakonomics by american economist Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, assuming some
      Message 76 of 76 , Nov 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        The honesty cafe is like the bagel (bread) business described in the book Freakonomics by american economist Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, assuming some of you read the book, as i will not go on with much detail of the bagel business and jump to the conclusion based on all the recorded account of sales by the business owner it is found out that.......

        most of the theft or loss on sales comes from poorly managed offices with bad managers.

        considering that the data given in the honesty cafe did not included the town's population, leadership characteristic of public officials and living conditions of the residents.

        we can indeed, initially conclude that the reason for the shown honesty towards the cafe is brought upon by the people having live most of their lives in a community together and have known each residents fairly well, to be convinced of putting up a business founded on the notion of trust.

        or we can try to apply game theory and assume each subjects of the "honesty" business corresponding gains and loses until arriving to an stable condition wherein paying out what any costumers (residents) took from the cafe will be of the highest good to all players (business owner and costumers).



        From: Mike Lopez <mjglopez@...>
        To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2008 5:04:20 AM
        Subject: Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: MOA without guards and sales people? Try the Honesty Cafe!

        I think the mob mentality is beyond the "one of us" factor though that'd
        help and probably lessen the stealing and such.

        On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM, jose mario sison <joma_sison@...>wrote:

        > but, what if, Henry Sy is "one of us"? Do we fall on the mob mentality?
        >
        >
        > John <harmless168@... <harmless168%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
        > That's nice. But is it located in a small town where everyone knows
        > everyone else? If so, then guilt and shame are even greater motivators to
        > pay for it, because you KNOW the person who owns the store.
        >
        > In the case of MOA, people will just think that Henry Sy and Co are rich
        > enough not to notice (not knowing that the goods on display aren't even
        > owned by Henry Sy and Co).
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: eduardo barot
        > To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com <pinoy_atheists%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2008 7:57:11 AM
        > Subject: Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: MOA without guards and sales people? Try
        > the Honesty Cafe!
        >
        > There is a real life MOA scenario that goes on almost everyday.
        >
        > But its in Batanes.
        >
        > In Batanes, they have this makeshift Karinderya known as the "Honesty
        > Cafe".. When you go in, there is food on the table with a pricelist
        > conspicuously posted on the wall. You eat your fill and pay for what you
        > took. There are no people in the cafe to watch over you because they are
        > busy fishing or planting. They're just there early mornings to cook and
        > evenings to get the day's earnings.
        >
        > So far I've heard no complaints of theft or underpayment.
        >
        > --- On Fri, 10/31/08, georgewheflin wrote:
        > From: georgewheflin
        > Subject: [pinoy_atheists] Re: For the purpose of expanding our
        > understanding of morality
        > To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com <pinoy_atheists%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 6:49 AM
        >
        > The point of the MOA scenario is that, people need policing in order
        >
        > to remain good and not that they remain good because of morality,
        >
        > religion or fear of god per se.
        >
        > --- In pinoy_atheists@ yahoogroups. com, "Pecier Decierdo"
        >
        > wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Hi Joma,
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Interesting scenario you've got there and very interesting questions.
        >
        > > I think you've nailed down the problem.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Now, this is my opinion; from a purely rational point of view, there
        >
        > > is no reason to expect that MOA won't be sacked after a month. A
        >
        > > purely rational being would find no reason to abide by the
        >
        > > non-rational concepts of 'fairness',' justice' and 'equality'. The
        >
        > > only 'equality' it will ever recognize is of the 1+1=2 type. Hence, I
        >
        > > believe, a purely rational person would just pick up what she needs
        >
        > > from MOA and go out without even paying. Of course, that is if;
        >
        > >
        >
        > > 1. That person won't become wanted by the law (there are no
        >
        > > surveillance cameras around).
        >
        > > 2. There will be no major economic repercussion, especially on the
        >
        > > person stealing; meaning, this person won't loose anything in case SM
        >
        > > closes up because of a major loss caused by the spree.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > But I suppose these conditions are already part of the problem.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > But we're not talking of a calculating machine here. We are not
        >
        > > talking about a damned robot. We are talking about a human being - a
        >
        > > social, political, moral and emotional animal.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Socially, a human being will be ashamed not to pay; she has an inner
        >
        > > social conscience which causes in her a great feeling of guilt and
        >
        > > shame whenever she has done something that her society is not pleased
        >
        > > with.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Politically, she will desire greater social order (although how to
        >
        > > achieve this a matter of great disagreement if not war), and if
        >
        > > everybody is allowed to do what they want, this order will be lost.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Morally, she has a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', an inner conscience
        >
        > > that follows that Golden Rule. She cannot stand cold watching her
        >
        > > fellow human beings getting brutally killed; she cannot calculate
        >
        > > about probabilities of survival calmly while watching a fellow human
        >
        > > drowning; she cannot look straight at the body of a live person being
        >
        > > opened unless trained properly (as in a surgeon or nurse); all this
        >
        > > because she cannot help but feel what her fellow human beings are
        >
        > > feeling, and all this because deep inside her she has a tendency to
        >
        > > follow that golden rule whenever she can.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > And finally, putting the keystone last, emotionally, a human being
        >
        > > cannot help but taint her evaluation of the world with her very own
        >
        > > feelings - guilt, love, pride, shame, pity, a sense of contentment,
        >
        > > hatred, remorse, anger, regret, jubilation, empathy and so on and so
        >
        > > forth.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Emotions, I believe, are the key to the moral precepts of human
        >
        > > beings; our very own desires are the foundations of our morality. This
        >
        > > is I think why we feel greater sympathy for the villain whose evil
        >
        > > deeds spring from a misappropriated emotional pain than from one whose
        >
        > > evil deeds spring from sheer wickedness. And this, I think, is why
        >
        > > morality is such a difficult topic � because it is not just
        >
        > > non-rational, it is beyond reason.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > -Pecier
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > --- In pinoy_atheists@ yahoogroups. com, jose mario sison
        >
        > > wrote:
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Hi
        >
        > > > Thanks for the explanation - but again, is it expected that an
        >
        > > individual (or community) remain good inspite of being unaccountable
        >
        > > to any consequences of his action?
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > js.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > georgewheflin wrote:
        >
        > > > otherwise means, the opposite of remaining good in spite
        >
        > > of being
        >
        > > > unaccountable to any of and consequences of your actions.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > --- In pinoy_atheists@ yahoogroups. com, jose mario sison
        >
        > > > wrote:
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > > would we neccesarily remain good than otherwise?
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > > Following your question; suppose one morning you read in the
        >
        > > > morning papers,
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > > "The Mall of Asia will be open to public today, but with a twist.
        >
        > > > For one month, starting today, all shops will be open but nobody will
        >
        > > > be manning them. All items will be price tagged and you, our precious
        >
        > > > customers, may buy it at your leisure. The prices are now lower than
        >
        > > > the usual, without the contribution of the salesperson, guards,
        >
        > > > cleaning staff and the like. You may shop at your convenience and we
        >
        > > > call on your conscience to pay the right price and take the right item
        >
        > > > of your purchase"
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > > Is it fair to expect that in less than one month, all the contents
        >
        > > > of MOA will be wipe out including the parts of the building (doors,
        >
        > > > airconditioning units, cables, display counters and even maniquins)?
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > > georgewheflin wrote:
        >
        > > > > In line with the subject of this post, i wish to ask this
        >
        > > > question and
        >
        > > > > hopefully receive new ideas to explain the concept and origin of
        >
        > > > > morality, justice and human nature.
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > > the question is as follows:
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > > Given you are allowed to do anything you want to other people,
        >
        > and can
        >
        > > > > get away from the responsibility of receiving punishment or
        >
        > penalties
        >
        > > > > from society due to the repercussion of your acts, why then its
        >
        > > > > necessary to remain good than otherwise?
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > http://www.philippineatheists.org/Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > http://www.philippineatheists.org/Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >



        --
        Mike Lopez
        http://mikelopez.info/


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        ------------------------------------

        http://www.philippineatheists.org/Yahoo! Groups Links






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.