March 23, 2023 • 13 mins
Saying that should cease – Getting away with it
Rules are out there – speed limits, paying for things, etc. – and there are times when they are not enforced. We often feel a brush of excitement in getting away with something, but is this helpful?
The Agenda episode on Has the Government Mishandled Pandemic Spending? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyDtRF-oQlk&t=1205s
The Inquiry on American Road Fatalities https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-pthb6-173c1277
The Agenda episode on Is Everyone Robbing Everyone in the Underground Economy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEfe9Bqia2o
Connect with Tanya Hewitt on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/tanya-hewitt-55804529/
Buy her a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/tanyah
Credits:
Adam Johns – voiceover - https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamjohns730/
Beverley McKiver – composer and player of the music Tell Me About Love - https://www.linkedin.com/in/beverleymckiver/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Adam Johns (00:03):
Welcome to Beyond the Minimum, where we'll be exploring the world of work. We'll be chatting about concepts, ideas and phrases, explore practices and delve into what good looks like. Work can be purposeful value lead, and more meaningful to all who interact with the workplace. This podcast is brought to you by Tanya Hewitt who lives in unceded Algonquin, Anishinaabeg territory, otherwise known as Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Tanya Hewitt (00:34):
Hi, everyone. Recently, I was in a moral ethical discussion, which does take place weekly, where they propose topics to discuss to be able to get to some ethical moral issues. A recent issue that was proposed was merging into lanes. And it was really insightful because the proposal was there was a merge lane. And there was a lane that was full of traffic that was backed up for some time because they were getting into the the main lane before the end of the merge lane. And this was proposed as a moral dilemma. One of the participants forwarded an article talking about a zipper merge saying that if people let people in all the time, when they're coming into the merge lane, right at the end of the merge I should say, the traffic flows most efficiently. It's counterintuitive. But that is in fact, the way that it works that if the traffic flows, and people are letting people in from the merge lane, people can be backed up in the merge lane and the normal lane, and the traffic will flow quite smoothly. But it was really insightful, that this was turned into a moral ethical issue. And you could see the people's reactions during this discussion, talking about the insensitivity of other drivers and how they
(02:27):
wouldn't let them in, no matter what if they were to go to the end of the merge lane. And I thought, Well, isn't thisinsightful? Often we will take very pragmatic, well engineered solutions, and put them through a moral ethical lens, and start to make judgments on people. As a result, we don't have to be doing that though, we could just start looking at the evidence and get much more well oiled behaviors. If we started to look at what evidence is showing us.
Adam Johns (03:14):
Today's episode is sayings that should cease.
Tanya Hewitt (03:20):
Hello, everyone, today's saying that should cease is getting away with it. There needs to be some nuance here. As with many of these popular sayings in our English lexicon. The overall idea is that there is a rule, and that the rule is a reasonable one that we all societally agree to by virtue of us living in society. Some rules are enforced more than others due to their nature. But often we have a tacit agreement that these rules are good, or at least reasonable ones that we can live by. So let's take a less controversial one. We collectively agree that murder is wrong, it should not be committed the planned deliberate taking of another's life. Now as I say this, a grade 11 law class that I had comes to mind of a battered wife who shot her husband dead while he was sleeping in his truck or those on the front line of a war. So it isn't universally clear. But there are cases that are not as controversial, and that murder is categorically wrong. We societally are intolerant of getting away with murder. We like to believe that murderers have done something wrong and are not comfortable when a murderer has gotten away with it. So we likely think this way because we are driven by the severity of the
(04:51):
infraction, we apply Newton's third law of equal and opposite reaction. completely fair in classical physics. It's not truewhen quantum physics and certainly not true in social realms, how it got here would be a really fascinating study. But at any rate, if the severity of a murder is what is driving your intolerance for murderers getting away with it, maybe it is driven by this underlying subconscious understanding of this equal and opposite reaction may be not to change your intolerance for murderers getting away with it, but to understand it more. This is what I'm talking about, you understand what is behind your beliefs, what is motivating you to have the opinions you hold. In a TVO Agenda episode on Mishandling Pandemic Spending, which I will put into the show notes, Ian Lee, a business professor at Carleton University says, and I quote, "Individuals are not entitled to keep money they were not entitled to in the first place." End quote. Merriam Webster defines entitled as having a right to certain benefits or privileges. So if a money lender makes a mistake, and the receiver gets more than they are owed, it is incumbent on the receiver to give back to the lender, what they know is not theirs. And Lee says that this
(06:19):
has been tested in the courts. So in addition to a pretty clear moral responsibility of benefiting from something you know,you shouldn't, it is also a legal one.
I know plenty of people who upon reviewing the receipt, if they are charged more than they should have been, will go andcomplain to get their money back. And these same people though, if they see they got more money than they should have, they say nothing and shush anyone around them, who would like to call attention to the mistake. We all do not want to be overcharged and will likely stand up if we are. However, if we are undercharged, we feel as though we are getting away with it. But this is inconsistent. If we were undercharged a significant amount, and amount that we would immediately notice. What is our reaction? "I'm not entitled to this money, I will find someone to rectify this", or "Wow, I can't believe it. They are stupid enough to make such a dumb mistake, I finally get to win". What is the motivation? We know we don't deserve the money. Why do we then justify this error as though we do deserve it? It is interesting to figure out what is behind this. Is it vengeance driven, making a company that makes too much money anyway, pay you who really, you deserve this? Or is it Woe is me, finally, my ship has come in, somebody out there is looking out for me, because I got this winfall, which was actually
(07:58):
just a mistake, that you got money that you didn't earn.
This is a wonderful opportunity to change your perspective. And imagine you were the lender and made a mistake the receiverdidn't tell you about. So just imagine that you had made a clerical error and overpaid someone to a fairly large amount. And that person didn't say anything. How would you feel them? The closer the relationship between the receiver and the lender, the more hurt you would likely feel if this was to a trusted friend or a family member or a colleague with whom you are in good relations. If it were a distant relation, you might not be as personally hurt. But you would still think that well what is wrong with this person, because they obviously should know that this was just a mistake. And they're not paying back the money. getting away with it can destroy relationships.
(09:06):
But it doesn't just stop there. I'll put an episode of the inquiry in the show notes where the car culture in the US andCanada for that matter is very uncultured. So much so that speeding is seen as an inherent right. If speed cameras are installed, they are seen exclusively as a cash grab and having nothing to do with controlling traffic safely, which is why they are installed the research behind traffic cameras is for safety, not to be able to line municipalities budgets. And if a camera isn't working, and you speed through an intersection, the reaction is likely "Wow, I'm glad I got away with it" instead of "Oh gosh, I need to change my dangerous behavior at this intersection". Of course if an accident occurs, and your speed is determined from the black box in your car, the superficiality of getting away with it will be all too apparent. Once you're charged with speeding, or worse.
(10:13):
I'll bring up one more example. It's an issue of TVO The Agenda, entitled, Is Everyone Robbing Everyone in the UndergroundEconomy. And I'll put this in the show notes. There is attention, of course on the larger companies, and unethical (but legal) tax loops. There's a whole lot to say about that, which I'll probably address in future episodes. But there is also attention on the paying cash underground economy. We would all want to save a buck and pay cash instead of a traceable taxable route, which is often seen in areas like construction and home renovations. And yet, we complain bitterly about the demise of the publicly funded healthcare system. A quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes comes to mind. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society". Believing we are getting away with something for which we should be paying taxes will harm us all inthe end.
(11:23):
Getting away with something is an often used phrase. But we should be more curious about why we feel this way. If we canaddress the underlying need, perhaps the pervasiveness of getting away with something will be on the decline. And we individually and collectively will be all the better for it.
(11:47):
I thank you for listening. I don't know if this is your first episode, or if you are a regular listener, having reallyappreciated some of this content. I just wanted to tell you that I really do appreciate you for listening. If you would like to express your gratitude for this podcast, I would encourage you to buy me a coffee, head on over to buy me a coffee.com/tanyah that's buy b-u-y me m-e a coffee c-o-f-f-e-e all one word.com/t-a-n-y-a-h tanyah. I will put this in the show notes. And I would really sincerely appreciate your support. In addition to that, you can rate and review this podcast and I really, really appreciate that you are here listening to what I am sending out to you guys. Thanks so much.
Adam Johns (12:59):
Thank you so much for listening to Beyond the Minimum with Tanya Hewitt. We hope this episode aligned with you. Maybe it was diametrically opposed to us, at any rate, we trust it made you think. The more we can think about our workplaces and start talking about them, the more we can collectively make a real difference. If you're living in Canada, please find out the Indigenous territory in which you reside. Begin using it to introduce yourself. Please reach out to Tanya through her email Tanya@beyondsafetycompliance.ca. Connect and chat with her on LinkedIn. Follow her company Beyond Safety Compliance. And remember to ask yourself the question, How does your work look? Because we can always go Beyond the Minimum.
Welcome to Beyond the Minimum, where we'll be exploring the world of work. We'll be chatting about concepts, ideas and phrases, explore practices and delve into what good looks like. Work can be purposeful value lead, and more meaningful to all who interact with the workplace. This podcast is brought to you by Tanya Hewitt who lives in unceded Algonquin, Anishinaabeg territory, otherwise known as Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Tanya Hewitt (00:34):
Hi, everyone. Recently, I was in a moral ethical discussion, which does take place weekly, where they propose topics to discuss to be able to get to some ethical moral issues. A recent issue that was proposed was merging into lanes. And it was really insightful because the proposal was there was a merge lane. And there was a lane that was full of traffic that was backed up for some time because they were getting into the the main lane before the end of the merge lane. And this was proposed as a moral dilemma. One of the participants forwarded an article talking about a zipper merge saying that if people let people in all the time, when they're coming into the merge lane, right at the end of the merge I should say, the traffic flows most efficiently. It's counterintuitive. But that is in fact, the way that it works that if the traffic flows, and people are letting people in from the merge lane, people can be backed up in the merge lane and the normal lane, and the traffic will flow quite smoothly. But it was really insightful, that this was turned into a moral ethical issue. And you could see the people's reactions during this discussion, talking about the insensitivity of other drivers and how they
(02:27):
wouldn't let them in, no matter what if they were to go to the end of the merge lane. And I thought, Well, isn't thisinsightful? Often we will take very pragmatic, well engineered solutions, and put them through a moral ethical lens, and start to make judgments on people. As a result, we don't have to be doing that though, we could just start looking at the evidence and get much more well oiled behaviors. If we started to look at what evidence is showing us.
Adam Johns (03:14):
Today's episode is sayings that should cease.
Tanya Hewitt (03:20):
Hello, everyone, today's saying that should cease is getting away with it. There needs to be some nuance here. As with many of these popular sayings in our English lexicon. The overall idea is that there is a rule, and that the rule is a reasonable one that we all societally agree to by virtue of us living in society. Some rules are enforced more than others due to their nature. But often we have a tacit agreement that these rules are good, or at least reasonable ones that we can live by. So let's take a less controversial one. We collectively agree that murder is wrong, it should not be committed the planned deliberate taking of another's life. Now as I say this, a grade 11 law class that I had comes to mind of a battered wife who shot her husband dead while he was sleeping in his truck or those on the front line of a war. So it isn't universally clear. But there are cases that are not as controversial, and that murder is categorically wrong. We societally are intolerant of getting away with murder. We like to believe that murderers have done something wrong and are not comfortable when a murderer has gotten away with it. So we likely think this way because we are driven by the severity of the
(04:51):
infraction, we apply Newton's third law of equal and opposite reaction. completely fair in classical physics. It's not truewhen quantum physics and certainly not true in social realms, how it got here would be a really fascinating study. But at any rate, if the severity of a murder is what is driving your intolerance for murderers getting away with it, maybe it is driven by this underlying subconscious understanding of this equal and opposite reaction may be not to change your intolerance for murderers getting away with it, but to understand it more. This is what I'm talking about, you understand what is behind your beliefs, what is motivating you to have the opinions you hold. In a TVO Agenda episode on Mishandling Pandemic Spending, which I will put into the show notes, Ian Lee, a business professor at Carleton University says, and I quote, "Individuals are not entitled to keep money they were not entitled to in the first place." End quote. Merriam Webster defines entitled as having a right to certain benefits or privileges. So if a money lender makes a mistake, and the receiver gets more than they are owed, it is incumbent on the receiver to give back to the lender, what they know is not theirs. And Lee says that this
(06:19):
has been tested in the courts. So in addition to a pretty clear moral responsibility of benefiting from something you know,you shouldn't, it is also a legal one.
I know plenty of people who upon reviewing the receipt, if they are charged more than they should have been, will go andcomplain to get their money back. And these same people though, if they see they got more money than they should have, they say nothing and shush anyone around them, who would like to call attention to the mistake. We all do not want to be overcharged and will likely stand up if we are. However, if we are undercharged, we feel as though we are getting away with it. But this is inconsistent. If we were undercharged a significant amount, and amount that we would immediately notice. What is our reaction? "I'm not entitled to this money, I will find someone to rectify this", or "Wow, I can't believe it. They are stupid enough to make such a dumb mistake, I finally get to win". What is the motivation? We know we don't deserve the money. Why do we then justify this error as though we do deserve it? It is interesting to figure out what is behind this. Is it vengeance driven, making a company that makes too much money anyway, pay you who really, you deserve this? Or is it Woe is me, finally, my ship has come in, somebody out there is looking out for me, because I got this winfall, which was actually
(07:58):
just a mistake, that you got money that you didn't earn.
This is a wonderful opportunity to change your perspective. And imagine you were the lender and made a mistake the receiverdidn't tell you about. So just imagine that you had made a clerical error and overpaid someone to a fairly large amount. And that person didn't say anything. How would you feel them? The closer the relationship between the receiver and the lender, the more hurt you would likely feel if this was to a trusted friend or a family member or a colleague with whom you are in good relations. If it were a distant relation, you might not be as personally hurt. But you would still think that well what is wrong with this person, because they obviously should know that this was just a mistake. And they're not paying back the money. getting away with it can destroy relationships.
(09:06):
But it doesn't just stop there. I'll put an episode of the inquiry in the show notes where the car culture in the US andCanada for that matter is very uncultured. So much so that speeding is seen as an inherent right. If speed cameras are installed, they are seen exclusively as a cash grab and having nothing to do with controlling traffic safely, which is why they are installed the research behind traffic cameras is for safety, not to be able to line municipalities budgets. And if a camera isn't working, and you speed through an intersection, the reaction is likely "Wow, I'm glad I got away with it" instead of "Oh gosh, I need to change my dangerous behavior at this intersection". Of course if an accident occurs, and your speed is determined from the black box in your car, the superficiality of getting away with it will be all too apparent. Once you're charged with speeding, or worse.
(10:13):
I'll bring up one more example. It's an issue of TVO The Agenda, entitled, Is Everyone Robbing Everyone in the UndergroundEconomy. And I'll put this in the show notes. There is attention, of course on the larger companies, and unethical (but legal) tax loops. There's a whole lot to say about that, which I'll probably address in future episodes. But there is also attention on the paying cash underground economy. We would all want to save a buck and pay cash instead of a traceable taxable route, which is often seen in areas like construction and home renovations. And yet, we complain bitterly about the demise of the publicly funded healthcare system. A quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes comes to mind. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society". Believing we are getting away with something for which we should be paying taxes will harm us all inthe end.
(11:23):
Getting away with something is an often used phrase. But we should be more curious about why we feel this way. If we canaddress the underlying need, perhaps the pervasiveness of getting away with something will be on the decline. And we individually and collectively will be all the better for it.
(11:47):
I thank you for listening. I don't know if this is your first episode, or if you are a regular listener, having reallyappreciated some of this content. I just wanted to tell you that I really do appreciate you for listening. If you would like to express your gratitude for this podcast, I would encourage you to buy me a coffee, head on over to buy me a coffee.com/tanyah that's buy b-u-y me m-e a coffee c-o-f-f-e-e all one word.com/t-a-n-y-a-h tanyah. I will put this in the show notes. And I would really sincerely appreciate your support. In addition to that, you can rate and review this podcast and I really, really appreciate that you are here listening to what I am sending out to you guys. Thanks so much.
Adam Johns (12:59):
Thank you so much for listening to Beyond the Minimum with Tanya Hewitt. We hope this episode aligned with you. Maybe it was diametrically opposed to us, at any rate, we trust it made you think. The more we can think about our workplaces and start talking about them, the more we can collectively make a real difference. If you're living in Canada, please find out the Indigenous territory in which you reside. Begin using it to introduce yourself. Please reach out to Tanya through her email Tanya@beyondsafetycompliance.ca. Connect and chat with her on LinkedIn. Follow her company Beyond Safety Compliance. And remember to ask yourself the question, How does your work look? Because we can always go Beyond the Minimum.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com