4 ms·

> Isn't that cheating? Isn't that betraying trust? Of course. > I think one should distrust these sorts of absolute condemnations of entire industries. Can yo

> Isn't that cheating? Isn't that betraying trust? Of course. > I think one should distrust these sorts of absolute condemnations of entire industries. Can you substantiate what you just wrote? Can you provide ironclad proof that all financial services companies are "evil?" It suffices to say that it is in the best interest of these companies to fool the people when they operate under current economic system. 2008 is one such example. Goldman Sachs owners getting rich, just the customers getting screwed is an extreme-case example. "Proof"? "All financial services"? Now you sound as if you expected me to produce a mathematical proof. I'm just talking about what the reasonable expectations are when considering different job offers. In today's startup-fueled climate I can phrase this way: a startup finds a solution to a problem noone knew they had, it spends time marketing it, ... Oh, back to the beginning: startup announces that it found a solution to a problem. Now they don't actually have any working code. They struggle to make a PoC for months, after that another PoC, ... Nothing actually does anything, just suffices to produce the illusion that something is being done and that something will eventually do something. All this just to keep the ball of fundraising rolling. The investors know it's all bullshit, but it's all not about getting a product in the end. It's about speculating what the next big thing will be. But it's all unimportant. Just keep the appearances and keep the money flowing. But don't fool yourself that any regular guy will benefit from what you're doing. For me it's depressing. But there are a lot of software developers who are just fine with it for the sake of a high salary. > In my opinion, the notion that, "Evil is okay to perform, so long as it's against those I don't like," is a sign that someone, somewhere doesn't understand principles and the concept of "evil." Classifying things unambiguously into "good" and "evil" may be unproductive. It's all a matter of context. I'd say that when your superior/boss requests you to harm others, you don't owe them obedience. Disobedience, cheating etc. aren't inherently "evil".

stcredzero 7y ago
"Proof"? "All financial services"? Now you sound as if you expected me to produce a mathematical proof. At least produce something that attempts to sound like a cogent theory, like the Marxists. (Though Karl Marx explicitly invents his own form of "logic" to do so.) Seems like you just don't like certain kinds of people, based on your prejudices about certain industries. I'd say that when your superior/boss requests you to harm others, you don't owe them obedience. I'd say that when some "activist" requests you to harm others, they aren't on the side of justice. Disobedience, cheating etc. aren't inherently "evil". Against someone who isn't intentionally doing you harm? That sounds pretty evil to me. Of course, the world's very worst evils consist of convincing one's own side the other is "evil" by redefining what that means, thereby justifying the other's harm.
- yakubin 7y ago
  > At least produce something that attempts to sound like a cogent theory, like the Marxists. (Though Karl Marx explicitly invents his own form of "logic" to do so.) Seems like you just don't like certain kinds of people, based on your prejudices about certain industries. More like based on my own first-hand experience with these people. > I'd say that when some "activist" requests you to harm others, they aren't on the side of justice. The question is: is it better to manipulate regular people/harm them in other ways or stop giving your best to make working with your code a pleasure. > Against someone who isn't intentionally doing you harm? That sounds pretty evil to me. Of course, the world's very worst evils consist of convincing one's own side the other is "evil" by redefining what that means, thereby justifying the other's harm. Now you are labeling disobedience as evil, regardless of what this disobedience is in response to? Do you think that your employer has the right to ask you to do just about anything without any regard for the consequences of your actions? I feel like we are pointlessly going in circles here. To be honest, I think that a much better choice is just resigning from the job (which I did recently) when you are uncomfortable with it. All these other things are secondary.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    > Seems like you just don't like certain kinds of people, based on your prejudices about certain industries. More like based on my own first-hand experience with these people. This is a verbal pattern used by bigots throughout history, including those who have bashed me personally on the basis of race and sexuality. What's your p-value based on your sample size? Now you are labeling disobedience as evil, regardless of what this disobedience is in response to? The ends don't justify the means. You seem to be pushing a notion, that sufficient evil justifies evil in turn. I feel like we are pointlessly going in circles here. No. I think 3rd party readers will learn something. To be honest, I think that a much better choice is just resigning from the job Agreed.
    - yakubin 7y ago
      > This is a verbal pattern used by bigots throughout history, including those who have bashed me personally on the basis of race and sexuality. What's your p-value based on your sample size? I haven't evaluated it scientifically. My description of the lifecycle of a startup is a result of my observations made working at such a startup. These observations are consistent with what I read around on the web. > The ends don't justify the means. You seem to be pushing a notion, that sufficient evil justifies evil in turn. No. I don't see disobedience as an evil that needs to be justified to be committed. I think that evaluating when things are evil has to be postponed until after evaluating the context. Without the context applying the word "evil" is nonsensical. In a particular case its context may imply that obedience will lead to your boss making more money and making it faster at the cost of harming regular people. Disobedience in form of e.g. suboptimal performance at work may delay the product, make your boss angry, your colleagues slightly irritated with your code (but still I bet there is nothing you can write in a short time which will frustrate them more than a decade-old legacy code everybody is scared to touch) with the benefit of lowering the cost to regular people. No I understand a boss would be very pleased with their employees fulfilling their every wish, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do. You may also not be in a position to risk your job. And perhaps the benefit to society gained by sabotage is abysmal and doesn't justify its cost. But it's all in the context. I would be very suspicious of any ethics system which said you should be obedient at all times, or even encouraged you to be obedient by default. Humans should have their conscience.

stcredzero 7y ago

"Proof"? "All financial services"? Now you sound as if you expected me to produce a mathematical proof. At least produce something that attempts to sound like a cogent theory, like the Marxists. (Though Karl Marx explicitly invents his own form of "logic" to do so.) Seems like you just don't like certain kinds of people, based on your prejudices about certain industries. I'd say that when your superior/boss requests you to harm others, you don't owe them obedience. I'd say that when some "activist" requests you to harm others, they aren't on the side of justice. Disobedience, cheating etc. aren't inherently "evil". Against someone who isn't intentionally doing you harm? That sounds pretty evil to me. Of course, the world's very worst evils consist of convincing one's own side the other is "evil" by redefining what that means, thereby justifying the other's harm.

yakubin 7y ago
> At least produce something that attempts to sound like a cogent theory, like the Marxists. (Though Karl Marx explicitly invents his own form of "logic" to do so.) Seems like you just don't like certain kinds of people, based on your prejudices about certain industries. More like based on my own first-hand experience with these people. > I'd say that when some "activist" requests you to harm others, they aren't on the side of justice. The question is: is it better to manipulate regular people/harm them in other ways or stop giving your best to make working with your code a pleasure. > Against someone who isn't intentionally doing you harm? That sounds pretty evil to me. Of course, the world's very worst evils consist of convincing one's own side the other is "evil" by redefining what that means, thereby justifying the other's harm. Now you are labeling disobedience as evil, regardless of what this disobedience is in response to? Do you think that your employer has the right to ask you to do just about anything without any regard for the consequences of your actions? I feel like we are pointlessly going in circles here. To be honest, I think that a much better choice is just resigning from the job (which I did recently) when you are uncomfortable with it. All these other things are secondary.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  > Seems like you just don't like certain kinds of people, based on your prejudices about certain industries. More like based on my own first-hand experience with these people. This is a verbal pattern used by bigots throughout history, including those who have bashed me personally on the basis of race and sexuality. What's your p-value based on your sample size? Now you are labeling disobedience as evil, regardless of what this disobedience is in response to? The ends don't justify the means. You seem to be pushing a notion, that sufficient evil justifies evil in turn. I feel like we are pointlessly going in circles here. No. I think 3rd party readers will learn something. To be honest, I think that a much better choice is just resigning from the job Agreed.
  - yakubin 7y ago
    > This is a verbal pattern used by bigots throughout history, including those who have bashed me personally on the basis of race and sexuality. What's your p-value based on your sample size? I haven't evaluated it scientifically. My description of the lifecycle of a startup is a result of my observations made working at such a startup. These observations are consistent with what I read around on the web. > The ends don't justify the means. You seem to be pushing a notion, that sufficient evil justifies evil in turn. No. I don't see disobedience as an evil that needs to be justified to be committed. I think that evaluating when things are evil has to be postponed until after evaluating the context. Without the context applying the word "evil" is nonsensical. In a particular case its context may imply that obedience will lead to your boss making more money and making it faster at the cost of harming regular people. Disobedience in form of e.g. suboptimal performance at work may delay the product, make your boss angry, your colleagues slightly irritated with your code (but still I bet there is nothing you can write in a short time which will frustrate them more than a decade-old legacy code everybody is scared to touch) with the benefit of lowering the cost to regular people. No I understand a boss would be very pleased with their employees fulfilling their every wish, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do. You may also not be in a position to risk your job. And perhaps the benefit to society gained by sabotage is abysmal and doesn't justify its cost. But it's all in the context. I would be very suspicious of any ethics system which said you should be obedient at all times, or even encouraged you to be obedient by default. Humans should have their conscience.