Yours is unfortunately the attitude which breeds corruption, and also the attitude of the majority of people. "Not my problem", "not my duty", "covering my own ass", "not getting into trouble" and so on. The reptilian minded people like OPs boss love having you guys around, because they can't do their unethical schemes just by themselves, and you won't make a fuss.
replyAs for the prosecutor; he is first and foremost interested in where the money went. If fraudulent hours didn't give OP an extra paycheck boost, then that money went somewhere else.
[flagged]
replyHaving morals doesn't mean you must self-sacrifice. If you have no obligations, you have no obligations.
replyHe did report, he chose to report to the choice he thought would have no motion. He knew it was wrong, he consulted with what to do, then he chose the action that let him skate by while observing prison-levels of public fraud. His entire monologue is self-serving while trying to maintain a facade of responsibility/ethic.
replyWhat facade of reponsability? Their responsibility was not being complicit in the crime and they accomplished just that. It's not their responsibility to prosecute their employer, specially if it comes with significant risks to their life.
replyHe was complicit when he knowingly made the choice that would have no accountability.
replyThat presumes that it's their responsibility to hold them accountable or, at least, that the other option is free. Given that you haven't shown either of those, and the statements point to the contrary, it's fair to say they are not complicit.
reply or, at least, that the other option is free
> So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally?
replyI see you cut the first part, only to follow with a "only" qualitative. That's not an honest nor moral thing to do. Specially given you still have to prove their moral obligations about the matter. Saying that they've chosen the risk minimizing option is a non sequitur.
If you only have morals when it's at no cost to yourself, do you have morals?
replyThat doesn't make sense. Obviously if I refrain from stealing I'm upholding my morals at a cost to myself (the cost being the free stuff I don't get). You seem to expect people to have morals at every cost to themselves, implying that they don't have any morals otherwise. You may as well ask why people aren't donating all of their possessions and living at the minimum subsistence level. Or why haven't you donated one of your kidneys yet? Do you consider it to be too high of a cost to yourself, even though it would be the "moral" thing to do?
reply