4 ms·

If all the employees with morals leave, GitHub will be left with no employees with morals. That is probably a worse situation.

qaq 7y ago
Aren't those who stay by definition are not moral people ? (provided they see the behavior of Github as immoral)?
- vertex-four 7y ago
  Depends on whether they believe they are in a position to make the company more moral by their presence, and whether their particular branch of philosophy says that matters.
truthwhisperer 7y ago
what kind of morals? These are probably the same guys who make 200-300k per year on wage + stock options If they have moral donate 50% of their wage towards these "poor" people or just tell them how woke you are and take on camera (with your 1000 euro iphone) I'm mean you don't invite people to your well build house who don't even know how to use the toilet right. So be harsh but fair on immigration and only allow the people who can contribute to a better society. The same as in their github environment. They don't allow people to work within Microsoft who are just fired at Burger king but don't have any relevant capabilities right
bryanmgreen 7y ago
This points to the heart of my internal debate on philosophical positioning: When is it the most moral option to not resign from companies that openly conflict with your moral compass but to fight from the inside and struggle day-by-day? I haven't come to any definitive conclusion, but my basic thought is: (A) If you and your allies have a decent opportunity to build a worthy competitor or work for one (ie: a similar company that aligns with your purpose), do it and shout about it from the rooftops. (B) If you and your allies don't have enough resources to build something better, fight from the inside until you do.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Maybe the most moral thing to do would be, should you find yourself employed at an immoral company -- Fight to do everything in your power to change the company's course, while drawing your salary (and thus their resources), and not contributing towards the immoral actions at all? Basically you'd be forcing them to fire you at some point, but until then, you're fighting against it for as long as possible and thus hopefully maximizing the chance of changing course.
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    This might considerably lower the chance of you being employed ever again. That is, employed in larger companies.
rpmisms 7y ago
Or some people don't feel that border control is incompatible with morality. Both opinions are valid.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I don't get the sense it's the abstract concept people are up in arms about, but the implementation. The US has a long history of implementation pessimizing desired outcome at the Southern border. For example, the number of undocumented permanent residents in the US went up when border control was tightened in previous administrations. Under lax border control, people could border-hop for a day or a week, take care of some business (mostly quite legal with the one exception of the failure to go through the entire process of a temporary visa), and go back. But when inspection constraints were tightened and checkpoints and fences went up, lots of hoppers decided that if they had to choose, they'd rather be trapped in the US than in Mexico. The intended effect of lowering undocumented residency boosted the numbers on undocumented residency. Oops. :-p

qaq 7y ago

Aren't those who stay by definition are not moral people ? (provided they see the behavior of Github as immoral)?

vertex-four 7y ago
Depends on whether they believe they are in a position to make the company more moral by their presence, and whether their particular branch of philosophy says that matters.

truthwhisperer 7y ago

what kind of morals? These are probably the same guys who make 200-300k per year on wage + stock options If they have moral donate 50% of their wage towards these "poor" people or just tell them how woke you are and take on camera (with your 1000 euro iphone) I'm mean you don't invite people to your well build house who don't even know how to use the toilet right. So be harsh but fair on immigration and only allow the people who can contribute to a better society. The same as in their github environment. They don't allow people to work within Microsoft who are just fired at Burger king but don't have any relevant capabilities right

bryanmgreen 7y ago

This points to the heart of my internal debate on philosophical positioning: When is it the most moral option to not resign from companies that openly conflict with your moral compass but to fight from the inside and struggle day-by-day? I haven't come to any definitive conclusion, but my basic thought is: (A) If you and your allies have a decent opportunity to build a worthy competitor or work for one (ie: a similar company that aligns with your purpose), do it and shout about it from the rooftops. (B) If you and your allies don't have enough resources to build something better, fight from the inside until you do.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Maybe the most moral thing to do would be, should you find yourself employed at an immoral company -- Fight to do everything in your power to change the company's course, while drawing your salary (and thus their resources), and not contributing towards the immoral actions at all? Basically you'd be forcing them to fire you at some point, but until then, you're fighting against it for as long as possible and thus hopefully maximizing the chance of changing course.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  This might considerably lower the chance of you being employed ever again. That is, employed in larger companies.

rpmisms 7y ago

Or some people don't feel that border control is incompatible with morality. Both opinions are valid.

shadowgovt 7y ago
I don't get the sense it's the abstract concept people are up in arms about, but the implementation. The US has a long history of implementation pessimizing desired outcome at the Southern border. For example, the number of undocumented permanent residents in the US went up when border control was tightened in previous administrations. Under lax border control, people could border-hop for a day or a week, take care of some business (mostly quite legal with the one exception of the failure to go through the entire process of a temporary visa), and go back. But when inspection constraints were tightened and checkpoints and fences went up, lots of hoppers decided that if they had to choose, they'd rather be trapped in the US than in Mexico. The intended effect of lowering undocumented residency boosted the numbers on undocumented residency. Oops. :-p