3 ms·

I'm not sure if this is right or not, but in philosophy class, I was taught that Google's motto was a manifestation of negative consequentialism: http://en.wiki

I'm not sure if this is right or not, but in philosophy class, I was taught that Google's motto was a manifestation of negative consequentialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#Negative_consequentialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#Negative_consequentialism Basically, the ethical decision is that which avoids a negative outcome. The professor mentioned a number of interesting implications of strict negative consequentialism. The following actions would be morally wrong: - For someone to stave off starvation by stealing a loaf of bread from Bill Gates. - Any type of self defense that involves harming others. Ie: using pepper spray to prevent rape. - Sacrificing one person's life to save the lives of a million others. Ie: killing Hitler before he started WWII.

BrandonM 19y ago
The 3 points you describe sound more to me like deontology than negative consequentialism. According to the entry you linked to, deontology judges actions based on the actions themselves, while consequentialism judges actions based on their consequences. Negative consequentialism, then, involves avoiding actions which produce consequences that are overall negative. In each case you described, the actions are typically considered deontologically wrong, but the overall consequences of those actions are not negative, so they don't seem to me to be wrong by negative consequentialist standards. Getting back to the topic of the submission, I always presumed that the comment basically meant, "Don't be like Microsoft." Many people call Microsoft the "Evil Empire", so this falls in nicely with that theme. By aligning themselves opposite Microsoft, Google is able to attract that population of hackers which does not appreciate Microsoft's business tactics (things like the FUD campaign that is going on right now in regards to patents). Whether Google is actually committed to moral business practices or not is debatable, but the motto is a nice way to appear "hacker-friendly".
- Sam_Odio 19y ago
  You're right - my examples (and google's motto) sound more deontological, or similar to the golden rule. Maybe someone who knows more about this can clarify.
  - vlad 19y ago
    I'm pretty sure it was just about not being Microsoft (and their anti-trust problems), using popup ads, or spamming, the things that were major problems that were ticking people off 7 or so years ago when that motto came about. I don't think it's very much beyond that. Don't be evil was a competitive advantage.
Tichy 19y ago
What about tracking everything about people's lives, and pushing spyware onto their computers (Google Toolbar)? Would that qualify?
- nostrademons 19y ago
  I wouldn't really call Google Toolbar "spyware" or say that it's pushed onto a computer. If you don't like it, don't use it. I don't. Nobody has yet made me.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    I think they do try to push it, for example didn't they strike a deal with Dell so that it comes preinstalled on every Dell Computer? Don't know what else they try to bundle it with - Yahoo does the same thing, though.
    - nostrademons 19y ago
      I think just about everything comes preinstalled on every Dell Computer. Dell probably thinks they're doing their users a favor by loading a brand new computer up with every piece of software available. I disagree, but that's why I don't buy from Dell - I've got a nice Acer laptop that came with absolutely nothing except the OS and some hardware-specific stuff (DVD-burner software, touchpad enhancements).
      - earthboundkid 19y ago
        "Dell probably thinks they're doing their users a favor by loading a brand new computer up with every piece of software available." No, Dell thinks, "Hey, free money!" Companies pay a lot to have their software pre-installed.
      - Tichy 19y ago
        I've been lucky so far with Dell: my lapatop came without leechware, and other computers at least came with a CD so I could reinstall a pure OS myself. Anyway, what I don't like about Google is that they are not very open about their data collection policies. Every product they publish seems on the one hand to be very useful, on the other hand it always seems perfect for collecting even more data. Google Earth - everyone bookmarks their own home first, right? So Google now knows where you live (they probably knew that before anyway, but still) Google Mail - uh, oh... Toolbar - track EVERY webpage you vist, and who knows what Google knows about your local hard drive? After all, if you search something local, and nothing is found, search automatically continues on Google, I think? So Google at the very least knows what you think is on your local harddrive... And so. It just annoys me that they pretend to be so innocent - I don't really blame them for collecting the data, it's their business, but they shouldn't pretend to not be evil. It just rings dishonest to me.
vlad 19y ago
I'm pretty sure it was just about not being Microsoft (and their anti-trust problems), using popup ads, or spamming, the things that were major problems in 2001.
bootload 19y ago
'... I was taught that Google's motto was a manifestation of negative consequentialism ...' Sam thats too much thinking for me (grin). Are we missing the point of the quote? The best example I've found why pb added 'dont be evil' to the list, was a jab at "their competitors". Pb suspected ( unsubstantiated ) them of "selling search results and mixing them in with real ones" (Founders at Work, Paul Buchheit, p170). Commercial gain through deception. It was after all meant to be a (serious) joke. Especially Amit Patel, who pb quotes as writing 'dont be evil' on whiteboards, 'all over the building'.

BrandonM 19y ago

The 3 points you describe sound more to me like deontology than negative consequentialism. According to the entry you linked to, deontology judges actions based on the actions themselves, while consequentialism judges actions based on their consequences. Negative consequentialism, then, involves avoiding actions which produce consequences that are overall negative. In each case you described, the actions are typically considered deontologically wrong, but the overall consequences of those actions are not negative, so they don't seem to me to be wrong by negative consequentialist standards. Getting back to the topic of the submission, I always presumed that the comment basically meant, "Don't be like Microsoft." Many people call Microsoft the "Evil Empire", so this falls in nicely with that theme. By aligning themselves opposite Microsoft, Google is able to attract that population of hackers which does not appreciate Microsoft's business tactics (things like the FUD campaign that is going on right now in regards to patents). Whether Google is actually committed to moral business practices or not is debatable, but the motto is a nice way to appear "hacker-friendly".

Sam_Odio 19y ago
You're right - my examples (and google's motto) sound more deontological, or similar to the golden rule. Maybe someone who knows more about this can clarify.
- vlad 19y ago
  I'm pretty sure it was just about not being Microsoft (and their anti-trust problems), using popup ads, or spamming, the things that were major problems that were ticking people off 7 or so years ago when that motto came about. I don't think it's very much beyond that. Don't be evil was a competitive advantage.

Tichy 19y ago

What about tracking everything about people's lives, and pushing spyware onto their computers (Google Toolbar)? Would that qualify?

nostrademons 19y ago
I wouldn't really call Google Toolbar "spyware" or say that it's pushed onto a computer. If you don't like it, don't use it. I don't. Nobody has yet made me.
- Tichy 19y ago
  I think they do try to push it, for example didn't they strike a deal with Dell so that it comes preinstalled on every Dell Computer? Don't know what else they try to bundle it with - Yahoo does the same thing, though.
  - nostrademons 19y ago
    I think just about everything comes preinstalled on every Dell Computer. Dell probably thinks they're doing their users a favor by loading a brand new computer up with every piece of software available. I disagree, but that's why I don't buy from Dell - I've got a nice Acer laptop that came with absolutely nothing except the OS and some hardware-specific stuff (DVD-burner software, touchpad enhancements).
    - earthboundkid 19y ago
      "Dell probably thinks they're doing their users a favor by loading a brand new computer up with every piece of software available." No, Dell thinks, "Hey, free money!" Companies pay a lot to have their software pre-installed.
    - Tichy 19y ago
      I've been lucky so far with Dell: my lapatop came without leechware, and other computers at least came with a CD so I could reinstall a pure OS myself. Anyway, what I don't like about Google is that they are not very open about their data collection policies. Every product they publish seems on the one hand to be very useful, on the other hand it always seems perfect for collecting even more data. Google Earth - everyone bookmarks their own home first, right? So Google now knows where you live (they probably knew that before anyway, but still) Google Mail - uh, oh... Toolbar - track EVERY webpage you vist, and who knows what Google knows about your local hard drive? After all, if you search something local, and nothing is found, search automatically continues on Google, I think? So Google at the very least knows what you think is on your local harddrive... And so. It just annoys me that they pretend to be so innocent - I don't really blame them for collecting the data, it's their business, but they shouldn't pretend to not be evil. It just rings dishonest to me.

vlad 19y ago

I'm pretty sure it was just about not being Microsoft (and their anti-trust problems), using popup ads, or spamming, the things that were major problems in 2001.

bootload 19y ago

'... I was taught that Google's motto was a manifestation of negative consequentialism ...' Sam thats too much thinking for me (grin). Are we missing the point of the quote? The best example I've found why pb added 'dont be evil' to the list, was a jab at "their competitors". Pb suspected ( unsubstantiated ) them of "selling search results and mixing them in with real ones" (Founders at Work, Paul Buchheit, p170). Commercial gain through deception. It was after all meant to be a (serious) joke. Especially Amit Patel, who pb quotes as writing 'dont be evil' on whiteboards, 'all over the building'.