Thread by @wolfejosh

1/ This is not black + white.

We would WANT MIT to take the money if it was part of a punishment (someone had to repent by donating) against their volition (ie a judgment upon them is saying this is for the betterment of society)

BUT...We would NOT want them to take it when...

https://twitter.com/david_ingram/status/1169424443191414784

2/ We would NOT want them to take it when someone gets a reward (social credit or status) for being voluntarily (if not selfishly) philanthropic

We force public or community service ON the SHAMED or criminals

We strip names OFF buildings to SHAME those who want public credit

3/ The key is not allowing an institution to whitewash or enhance a miscreants reputation at the institutions expense

But to enhance and advance public good at the miscreants expense...

4/ it is all about status & power
If an act of public good is voluntarily done by a bad person and they get credit (we primates despise this as it is display of power over people or institution)

BUT...

5/ if act of giving is *involuntarily* insisted from them (we primates like this—as it puts power over them, subjugating them against their will or preference (of what they wish to do) and strips them of status of what they want to do

Difference between a FINE and a GIFT

6/ In sum:

a GIFT is FINE from the GOOD
a FINE is a GIFT from the BAD

Much debate will follow about whether institutions who do GOOD ought advance their cause blind to morality of source. Much depends on anonymity, and if source is rewarded with status or punished with shame