3 ms·

So? That's not a rhetorical question. xwdv seems to have rejected moral purity as a driving principal or at the very least (being more charitable), has stated

So? That's not a rhetorical question. xwdv seems to have rejected moral purity as a driving principal or at the very least (being more charitable), has stated that people who wish to be successful should reject moral purity as a driving principal. I don't quite understand the argument, since it seems to rest on something the OP has already cast aside.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
I'm questioning their definition of success and what that "success" matters when they reach their goals without any ethical principles? I'd like this person to elucidate why moral purity (not doing things like murder, assault, fraud, theft, etc) is antithetical to success and explain why people who practice this aren't universally a danger to the common (wo)man and organized society? Their argument is essentially that not only is it okay to rob, embezzle, murder and lie to reach their goal, but that since you competition is you should either become a criminal or prepare for failure. I'd rather not live in a world where people who survive this way are celebrated.
- xwdv 6y ago
  You’re living in it now. Success for a lot of startups isn’t really anything noble, it basically just means making a lot of money.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    Yes and? Whenever possible I choose not to give such companies my money. Obviously it's hard when virtually every major company in existence is unethical. By redefining success to mean lots of money corporate standards are regressing and that's extremely concerning. This trend has cause caused immeasurableharm to society and most people are pretending like everything is fine.
    - xwdv 6y ago
      Because it is fine. Even good things can come from unethical companies, such as well paying jobs for people to feed their families and amazing products and services that improve people’s lives. No use in getting rattled by how the sausage gets made.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago

I'm questioning their definition of success and what that "success" matters when they reach their goals without any ethical principles? I'd like this person to elucidate why moral purity (not doing things like murder, assault, fraud, theft, etc) is antithetical to success and explain why people who practice this aren't universally a danger to the common (wo)man and organized society? Their argument is essentially that not only is it okay to rob, embezzle, murder and lie to reach their goal, but that since you competition is you should either become a criminal or prepare for failure. I'd rather not live in a world where people who survive this way are celebrated.

xwdv 6y ago
You’re living in it now. Success for a lot of startups isn’t really anything noble, it basically just means making a lot of money.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Yes and? Whenever possible I choose not to give such companies my money. Obviously it's hard when virtually every major company in existence is unethical. By redefining success to mean lots of money corporate standards are regressing and that's extremely concerning. This trend has cause caused immeasurableharm to society and most people are pretending like everything is fine.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    Because it is fine. Even good things can come from unethical companies, such as well paying jobs for people to feed their families and amazing products and services that improve people’s lives. No use in getting rattled by how the sausage gets made.