Monday, September 21, 2026

Metaphor Matters

A forest scene depicting a man and a woman, each in their youth,
          having a picnic lunch in a forest clearing. A fallen tree separates
          them, acting as a crude table. A tablecloth has been placed over part
          of the tree. Each person sits on a rock, and they appear happily engaged
          in conversation. The scene is mostly grayscale, but desaturated color
          has been added to some of the elements to brighten it in subtle ways.
          A strip of a vague green emphasizes the surrounding foliage, with a
          slightly brighter yellow for the tablecloth and a slightly bluish tone
          to the rocks each sits on. They are eating sandwiches, cut diagonally.
          The woman seems to have consumed half of hers, or else she had only a
          half. The man has one half in his hand, the other on his plate.
          There is a picnic basket nearby, which is closed, so we cannot see inside.

Metaphor is a craft of language, but helps us organize concepts in our head. That symbiosis is ethically fraught and we're occasionally vulnerable to being tricked, so I want to explore that a little here.

Shift of metaphor can be helpful to understanding. But we conceive of understanding as involving perceived truth, and metaphors are tricky because parts of them, by design, are not literal truth. In a metaphor, you have to know which part is the intended structural truth and which other part is just along for the ride.

An impromptu metaphor

If you and I are out in a forest and have brought a picnic lunch, you might say “Where do we eat? There's no table or chairs.” To which I might respond, A forest scene depicting a man and a woman, each in their youth,
          having a picnic lunch in a forest clearing. A fallen tree separates
          them, acting as a crude table. A tablecloth has been placed over part
          of the tree. Each person sits on a rock, and they appear happily engaged
          in conversation. The scene is mostly grayscale, but desaturated color
          has been added to some of the elements to brighten it in subtle ways.
          A strip of a vague green emphasizes the surrounding foliage, with a
          slightly brighter yellow for the tablecloth and a slightly bluish tone
          to the rocks each sits on. They are eating sandwiches, cut diagonally.
          The woman seems to have consumed half of hers, or else she had only a
          half. The man has one half in his hand, the other on his plate.
          There is a picnic basket nearby, which is closed, so we cannot see inside. pointing to a fallen log with two large, well-placed stones, one on each side, “Pull up a chair.”

The stones are not chairs. They probably cannot even be pulled. To process this metaphor, you must sort out which parts I intend (that a chair can be sat upon, that the arrangement of the stones and the log is such that they might suffice to accommodate an impromptu lunch), and which parts I don't intend. Pulling up a chair is again metaphorical. I just mean “sit down” but have worked the idea into the prior metaphor. The sense of the log as a table might work for sandwiches but if we'd brought soup, which requires a more level surface, it might not have.

We use language to play these games routinely. You are not tricked by this metaphor because you see the context, what it's being used for. It will be gone soon enough. All good.

The “Facebook friend” metaphor

But there are situations that are more complicated, that persist, that have very powerful implications. Facebook offers us the ability to have “friends.” You may not see this as a metaphor. Many people enumerate their friends and assume the terminology is literal. But it is not. It's a metaphor.

A friend arrives, someone you like well enough, but they do not socialize well with your other friends. Are they not then your friend, if you do not add them at Facebook? If someone is annoying after they're added and you remove them, are they no longer your friend?

I have come to see the Facebook paradigm as a bad metaphor, even an obfuscated one. It's hard to notice that it's a metaphor at all. This leads to problems. People feel bad about “unfriending” someone because it seems like they are telling the person they are not their friend. That was avoidable, I think, by better choice of metaphor.

I think of “Facebook friends” not as the role of “friend” but “party guest.” I find this makes things easier. Facebook could have used such a metaphor. It's OK that it didn't. But it matters that you see that they could have. Because then you can think about “Facebook friends” in a way of your choosing.

Once you see it's a metaphor, you realize only parts of it apply. Not all of it. Rather than “unfriend” I think about kicking a guest out of a party. It's hard sometimes, but it's not friend-level hard. And it explains why some people that are Facebook friends are not in fact my friends. Sometimes parties have extra people along. It's not a commitment.

Metaphor is important. It helps us understand new situations. Facebook got a lot of mileage out of using the friend metaphor because people immediately understood the space of how to use the system. A lot didn't have to be explained.

The “computer desktop” metaphor

The same success happened when computers adopted the “desktop metaphor.” People knew about file folders and about organizing things in groups, so the older idea of a hierarchical file system organized in other ways, like as a book outline, was suddenly the less interesting way to think about things. The graphical view had immediate appeal.

But sometimes the desktop metaphor breaks down. I was once helping my mom understand the Apple desktop and she said “so when I open a folder, that means I have it in my hands and no one else can look at it, right?” Well, no, it doesn't mean that. But maybe that's a misdesign. The metaphor certainly suggests that's a reasonable interpretation. So there are limits to even benign metaphors in what they can do for us.

The “membership” metaphor

If you're a member of a club, you can join it online and talk to its members. But have you wondered why your gas station wants you to join? It's because in competition in marketplaces, they've figured out that people like to do things with things they feel part of. So they have a better chance of you going there because “you're a member.” Never mind that there are no meetings, and you have no interest in talking to anyone that works there. That one fact will do something in your mind that changes your perception. Metaphor at work.

It also explains why charities want you to join them. Isn't it enough that you gave them money? No, because it might have been a one-time thing. If they want more money later, it lands differently if a stranger says “hey, you gave me money, so you have to give me more” or if an organization you joined says, “hey, we haven't seen you in a long time, old friend. how about a bit of support?” And yet those are pretty much the same except the latter is through the membership metaphor. It makes you less mad at a communication being unsolicited.

So watch for metaphors. Understand their implication. They offer powerful good, and they risk tricking you. You even might find that being a member of a religious or political organization makes you feel like you need to get along with and support others in that organization, even when that organization gets captured. Membership metaphor at play again. Beware. It might still be an organization you're caring about. You might want the contact. You might want to help. But do it by thinking, not by reflex.

Final Thoughts

So I'm saying metaphor matters. Whether metaphors, or their employers, are friendly and helpful or trying to trick us is hard to cleanly define. I'm not trying to tell you how to do that. I'm saying it's worth knowing you might need to. Life is a jungle. Sometimes it helps to have a map or guidebook, sometimes a machete—metaphorically speaking, of course.

 


Author’s Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

This post began as part of another post I was writing. After a while, some of these get long, so breaking them off and giving them a life of their own seems like the way to go.

The image generated with help from abacus.ai's ChatLLM (Claude Opus 4.8 as primary assistant and for vision/analysis, Nano Banana Pro for image generation), with light post-processing in Gimp to do cropping, prefer grayscale, and add back desaturated color, and finally to scale things down for reduced image size and ultimately faster web download, The image analysis was needed because there were some editing errors that Nana Banana Pro kept making, and I had to show them to Claude for it to see what instructions to give to repair them. That only sometimes worked, which is why I had to do more of the final parts by hand than I usually do.

Sunday, September 20, 2026

Compliance is not Ethics

A hand-drawn image of a packaged up chocolate bunny, presumably ready for sale.
          The general style is black&white, though the bunny is done in chocolate brown.
          A label at the top of the box says “Tasty, Hollow Ethics” and
          A label at the bottom in much larger print says “COMPLIANCE”.

I want to make a simple point just for the record...
 Compliance (a.k.a. “Business Ethics”) is not Ethics.

As far as I'm concerned...
 ethics is to compliance as
 bunny is to chocolate bunny.

To me, ethics is an exercise in self-restraint. It looks at things that are legal and still asks the question, “Even though I'm allowed, maybe I shouldn't do it anyway?”

By contrast, compliance is an exercise in manifest destiny. Businesses decide they're determined to do something and then assign someone, usually a lawyer or someone they flatter by calling an “ethicist,” to find any rationale, however thin, that explains why the thing they are already bound and determined to do should be seen as legal, so they don't have to slow down or ask permission before proceeding.

These are not the same.

I recommend never using the term “business ethics” when speaking of corporate decision-making. Always say “compliance.”

Additional Thoughts

  • There are deep reasons for believing that corporations are not even capable of ethics. To understand those, see my essay Fiduciary Duty vs. The Three Laws of Robotics. Once you've got that foundation, you're well positioned to understand the dance I call Technology's Ethical Two-Step.

  • I owe a whole essay on the topic of ethics and ethicists. Since I've not written that yet, I'll just say that to me, ethics is a hygiene, not a credential. I'm not sure anyone should wear the label, but especially not those doing compliance. I'd love to have a job doing real ethics for a company, but I'd have trouble with the title “ethicist.”

    I often say of myself “I aspire to be ethical” because saying I am ethical seems a little too much like I'm confused into thinking I'm there. It makes me cringe.

    I would make analogy to alcoholism, where people say they are sober, not that they are no longer alcoholic. Or to the Catholic church, where everyone is just assumed to be a sinner who keeps trying, rather than ever declaring themselves to be without sin.

    To me, the biggest danger sign of being in ethical danger is believing that one is ethical. And even if I thought I had somehow gotten there, I would insist on starting each day asking “Am I still ethical?”

 


Author’s Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

For other posts by me on ethics, click here.

The image generated with help from abacus.ai's ChatLLM (Claude Opus 4.8, GPT Image 2.5 and GPT Image 2.5 [Edit], which is apparently not the same). Light post-processing was done in Gimp to crop and optimize the resulting image as a .jpg for faster web download,