Apparently not changing moral stances in private vs in public makes us unable to understand personal gain. Some real Ayn Rand shit.

  • TerminalEncounter [she/her]
    ·
    2 years ago

    It's nice to see actual scientific evidence for what I've anecdotally noticed about people on the spectrum, that they are very moral and ethical and are usually surprised about neurotypicals "moral flexibility."

    Like, if you ask people "if you found a wallet with $1000 in it and a driver's license, knowing that no one will be hurt if you take $100 in this hypothetical, and no one will notice and you will not get punished by doing so - would you take some money form it?" Neurotypicals usually say yes even though they say it's wrong, people on the spectrum usually say no and are pretty surprised about it.

    Also, I swear people with ASD are extremely charitable and are probably up there with the furries for most charitable donations per capita.

    • Wildgrapes [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Tbf as an autistic there are situations I'd take the money. Namely if the drivers license said "Elon Musk" but this is still consistent withy morals of steal from the parasites

      • JamesGoblin [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        In his case I'd return all the money, just spraying it with the most cancerous neurotoxin I could find.

    • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It’s nice to see actual scientific evidence for what I’ve anecdotally noticed about people on the spectrum, that they are very moral and ethical and are usually surprised about neurotypicals “moral flexibility.”

      Gee, i'm beginning to suspect that neuroscience in the imperial core is being re-tooled by the bourgeoisie to uphold and promote behavior we used to call sociopathic, and to label people with empathy and ethics as an inflexible outgroup, unfit to operate in a free market. :doomer:

    • cynesthesia
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • Ligma_Male [comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        i think the implication is meant to be that they're rich enough to not be hurt by losing $100, in which case the moral thing to do is probably to buy gasoline with the money and burn down their house, but maybe not.

        • cynesthesia
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          deleted by creator

        • DinosaurThussy [they/them]
          hexagon
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          How much money would have to be in the wallet to not miss a $100 bill? That’s not how money works

          Edit: not trying to criticize you, just the study

          • Ligma_Male [comrade/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            yeah i dunno. they made up the scenario so they get to say "no harm" even when it's completely unrealistic. and we're the unreasonable ones for not stealing from some rando who could have just as easily sold their car or gotten scammed by a payday lender.

    • berrytopylus [she/her,they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Do I know the person in the license? Beause if they're some local rich fuck or celebrity then that wealth distribution is fine by my moral code. But if it's just random Joey who is already struggling to pay his bills and took out 1,000 because he needed to do something directly then of course it's wrong to take any!