Hacker News Reader

That's great in theory, but should the people suffer more of Haiti because of these individuals? I'm guessing that none of these organisations could exist without compromising things for the greater good.

View on HN

This assumes that the Red Cross is the only organisation that could help in Haiti, and that their approach is the only one that could possibly work. Neither of those things are necessarily true. If they're bribing people then they should report that - not the details (although maybe they should), but they should at least be saying "We raised $500m, and spent $50m on bribes so we could get the job of helping people done. It sucks but that's what we're working with here."

Also, at what point does "compromising things for the greater good" become untenable? To go down the argumentum ad absurdum route, if we learned that the Red Cross were hiring contract killers to eliminate officials that were standing in the way of building homes for Haitians would that be something they shouldn't do, or that they should do but they should keep quiet about? At some point it is right to say "Let's not do that even if it means people will suffer." That's definitely before killing people, obviously, but is it before bribing people?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com