Whereas in fact it is anything but pedantic.
"The whole assumption that ethics have a price tag attached is faulty"
For everyone.
> But we’re past the point that readers are having a nice time reading this.
You seem to be in a habit of projecting your own feelings onto everybody else.
> If you’d like to continue, I’m happy to do so, but we need to restrict ourselves to a high caliber of debate, if only for HN’s sake.
Suit yourself.
If you ever do want to probe deeper into the question of ethics vs cost, I think it would be interesting. But since you keep talking about me rather than the idea, the interest feels one-sided.
Ethics problems typically do not lend themselves to be translated into a caricature of the market economy. The habit of assigning price tags to stuff can help if the original problem is cost related, but it tends to be a crutch when things of a more principal nature are discussed, which would have a valid meaning absent such things as money or physical rewards. As long as you keep framing it like that you won't get further.
Since you’re misquoting yourself, it sounds like you don’t want to have this debate, or you may not have realized what you said. But “The whole assumption that ethics have a price tag attached is faulty” is not at all the same thing as “ethical people exist.” It’s not a pedantic distinction; one is debating whether people will take compensation for acting unethically, even if they feel they’re the most ethical person on the planet — I think the answer is “yes” — whereas “ethical people exist” is a point no one could disagree with.
It’s a bit unexpected for you to omit your “price tag” words and then continue with my argument.
But we’re past the point that readers are having a nice time reading this. If you’d like to continue, I’m happy to do so, but we need to restrict ourselves to a high caliber of debate, if only for HN’s sake.