4 ms·

"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

"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.

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.