6 ms·

Ok, and because of that, your action will cause a huge amount of harm in the world because you let bad actors get away with bad things. My actions make the wor

by stale2002 6y ago

Ok, and because of that, your action will cause a huge amount of harm in the world because you let bad actors get away with bad things. My actions make the world a better place, and your actions make the world worse.

WalterBright 6y ago
> My actions make the world a better place Reneging on your agreement only benefits you, and only in the short term. In the long term, you'll acquire a reputation that you don't keep your word, and fewer and fewer people will want to do business with you. Even worse, they won't tell you why, and you'll be wondering why you've been shut out. More bluntly, my father told me that what separates men from animals is men have honor. Each of us gets to choose what we are.
- eesmith 6y ago
  Many people buy property with racially restrictive covenants still attached to them, never intending to follow them, and knowing that those racist covenants have been unenforceable since the 1940s. Effectively none of these people have acquired a reputation that they are not keeping their word. (Indeed, voluntarily keeping their word would be illegal under the Fair Housing Act.) Just like I don't think anyone who has signed a contract with terms that aren't legally enforceable in CA has gotten a reputation for not keeping their word. (A rare handful of people will back out once they find such restrictions exist, or exercise the recent right in some jurisdictions to disclaim those covenants.) It's certainly true that covenants are much harder to change than an employment contract! But so far your argument hasn't been that simply signing a contract with an unenforceable term, where you know it's unenforceable, is unethical. You haven't placed a weight on the difficulty in making a change. Going back to your original statement: > say it's not valid in California so why have it in the contract People move. I always thought that if I moved from CA to TX then such clause would be binding. 'Course, I am not a lawyer. But if most people hold my opinion then again, there's no chance of reputation loss here.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    The racist covenant is a different situation as it is not only unenforceable, it is illegal for the owner to comply with it. It is not illegal for the employee to adhere to the non-compete agreement.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      Yes, I pointed that out. Consider the era between when the Supreme Court said they were unenforceable, and when the Federal government made voluntary adherence illegal. Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it? If your father had known that person in the 1950s, would he have said that selling the house to a black family gives them a deserved reputation of breaking their word? Lastly, going back to CA-specific employment law - why can't I agree that if I move to another state then I can be subject to a non-compete agreement that was in the contract when I signed it while living in CA?
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        > Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it? It's a little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards. But I'll take a stab. You can't line out a clause in the covenant like you can in a contract. But you can 1) refuse to buy it or 2) make it clear you'll fight it in court if you need to. As for what my father would do, I don't know. But I do know that he'd judge a man by his honor, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, and his performance of duty to his country. He did not judge a man by his color, uniform, nationality, etc. And it cost him his career in the Air Force, so he didn't take this lightly.
        eesmith 6y ago
        #1 means the white separationists get what they want. #2 still hasn't happened, despite decades of activism. So would you father have respected someone who kept his word and judged a man by his color by not selling a house to him? Or would he have respected someone who willfully broke an unforceable agreement to discrimintate on the basis of race? I couldn't tell from your answer. If I sign a contract with a non-compete clause in CA, where it's unenforceable, then move to TX with the same job, is that clause now enforceable? If so, then how is it unethical to sign the contract? EDIT: if it's little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards, then is not not also a little unfair to judge a modern person on your father's ethical standards?
- vinger 6y ago
  Animals have honor and men have brains who make situational decisions. Not playing by the rules of business is not honorable it's naive. A contract is a business agreement. If a provision isn't legal the contract usually asks that only that clause is removed enforcing the remaining contract. If something isn't enforceable in your opinion but the company is asking for it and refusing it could kill the deal it wouldn't make sense to threaten the deal over an issue you know will be resolved in your favor? In reality companies who make you sign a non-compete will glady hire from an organzation they compete with. If you somehow know the non-compete isn't enforceable and you don't tell them is that amoral?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Not playing by the rules of business is not honorable it's naive. Behaving ethically does not imply allowing others to treat you badly. Recall I wrote that you can simply line out that clause, and explain it is unenforceable and you won't abide by it. You are then on ethical ground. If that "kills the deal" then do you really want to work for them? > In reality companies who make you sign a non-compete will glady hire from an organzation they compete with. Your ethics are about you, not the other party. > If you somehow know the non-compete isn't enforceable and you don't tell them is that amoral? Sensible people run contracts by their own lawyer - the lawyer for the other party has a fundamental conflict of interest. If you're signing a contract for $150,000 a year, don't you agree it makes sense to drop $400 on a lawyer to check it? You'll get better advice than on HackerNews - and your lawyer will be ethically obliged to inform you about these things. Besides, having unenforceable clauses in a contract is neither illegal nor unethical. It's just unenforceable. Not everyone needs the threat of civil court to keep their agreements.
    - vinger 6y ago
      The entire point of a contract is to have a document that can be brought to civil court. If you and your employer don't feel you need one and can rely on ethics alone why sign? I think the reason why companies want you sign one is because in the event of you leaving, companies can't enforce a word of mouth agreement in court. Whatever is in your contract is what you agreed to but local laws might superseed your agreement. This doesn't make you amoral if you don't educate a company on local laws. This is solely the company's responsibility. You get no hero points and your family is not better off. Telling a company their contract is not legal can be seen as a little rude and could give you a bad reputation.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > In the long term In the long term the world would be better off if companies that are doing bad things get negative consequences. So that is good, not bad. If more people punished bad actors, it would be better. > fewer and fewer people will want to do business More people causing negative consequences to bad companies is a good thing though! > Each of us gets to choose what we are And everyone choosing to cause damage to bad actors is a good thing. You choose to let them get away with bad actions, and the other people who actually want to make the world a better place choose to correctly cause consequences on bad actors. The "animals" are the people who stand by and do nothing against bad actors.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    A father and his son were strolling down the street one day, and as they passed a woman the father tipped his hat to her. His son says, "father, why did you tip your hat to her? She's no lady, she's the town prostitute." His father says, "son, you're right. She is no lady. But I'm a gentleman." > You choose to let them get away with bad actions Nope. I said line it out. > More people causing negative consequences to bad companies is a good thing though! Behaving unethically makes you just as bad.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      Prositutes don't deserve bad things to happen to them. Companies that screw over employees do though. A better example would be tipping your hat to an assaulter, who mugs people. I would not respect someone who attacks others with physical violence. > Nope. I said line it out. And then they refuse to hire you, and hire someone else. That makes it pretty likely that they would get away with it, and screw over a different employee. > Behaving unethically makes you just as bad. Lets say you live in a medieval village, where there is a racist law that makes it legal for people to steal from or assault others, if they are of a certain race. So if you see a thief, currently mugging or attacking someone, then you would be just as bad as the thief if you engaged in self defense to stop them then? Because violence is bad? You would not only refuse to defend someone else from the thief, you would tip your hat to the assaulter! No. I a not going to respect the attacker. Yeah no. Defending others against a thief is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if we live in some world where the attacker is not engaging in any illegal actions.
loco5niner 6y ago
Just to be clear, you are claiming that doing the wrong thing because someone else is also doing a wrong thing is going to make things better because "they deserve it". Sounds like a vicious circle to me. Who is going to think that YOU "deserve it"? Also, by choosing to work for a bad actor, you would be enabling them, purely out of a selfish motive. People making ethical choices is one of the (many) things that make the world a better place.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > because someone else is also doing a wrong thing is going to make things better It is ok to do wrong things against people who are doing bad things to you, yes. The obvious example, would be you are being attacked, and you defend yourself with violence, which is normally "wrong". > Who is going to think that YOU "deserve it"? The other side is already engaging in these actions. Just accepting the bad actions against yourself, without a counter response, just leaves you open to being taken advantage of. > People making ethical choices is one of the (many) things that make the world a better place. Yes, and it is ethical to punish and retaliate against bad actors, so that they don't get away with the bad thing. In the same way that it is ethical to defend yourself against assault, even though violence is normally wrong.

WalterBright 6y ago

> My actions make the world a better place Reneging on your agreement only benefits you, and only in the short term. In the long term, you'll acquire a reputation that you don't keep your word, and fewer and fewer people will want to do business with you. Even worse, they won't tell you why, and you'll be wondering why you've been shut out. More bluntly, my father told me that what separates men from animals is men have honor. Each of us gets to choose what we are.

eesmith 6y ago
Many people buy property with racially restrictive covenants still attached to them, never intending to follow them, and knowing that those racist covenants have been unenforceable since the 1940s. Effectively none of these people have acquired a reputation that they are not keeping their word. (Indeed, voluntarily keeping their word would be illegal under the Fair Housing Act.) Just like I don't think anyone who has signed a contract with terms that aren't legally enforceable in CA has gotten a reputation for not keeping their word. (A rare handful of people will back out once they find such restrictions exist, or exercise the recent right in some jurisdictions to disclaim those covenants.) It's certainly true that covenants are much harder to change than an employment contract! But so far your argument hasn't been that simply signing a contract with an unenforceable term, where you know it's unenforceable, is unethical. You haven't placed a weight on the difficulty in making a change. Going back to your original statement: > say it's not valid in California so why have it in the contract People move. I always thought that if I moved from CA to TX then such clause would be binding. 'Course, I am not a lawyer. But if most people hold my opinion then again, there's no chance of reputation loss here.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  The racist covenant is a different situation as it is not only unenforceable, it is illegal for the owner to comply with it. It is not illegal for the employee to adhere to the non-compete agreement.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    Yes, I pointed that out. Consider the era between when the Supreme Court said they were unenforceable, and when the Federal government made voluntary adherence illegal. Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it? If your father had known that person in the 1950s, would he have said that selling the house to a black family gives them a deserved reputation of breaking their word? Lastly, going back to CA-specific employment law - why can't I agree that if I move to another state then I can be subject to a non-compete agreement that was in the contract when I signed it while living in CA?
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it? It's a little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards. But I'll take a stab. You can't line out a clause in the covenant like you can in a contract. But you can 1) refuse to buy it or 2) make it clear you'll fight it in court if you need to. As for what my father would do, I don't know. But I do know that he'd judge a man by his honor, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, and his performance of duty to his country. He did not judge a man by his color, uniform, nationality, etc. And it cost him his career in the Air Force, so he didn't take this lightly.
      - eesmith 6y ago
        #1 means the white separationists get what they want. #2 still hasn't happened, despite decades of activism. So would you father have respected someone who kept his word and judged a man by his color by not selling a house to him? Or would he have respected someone who willfully broke an unforceable agreement to discrimintate on the basis of race? I couldn't tell from your answer. If I sign a contract with a non-compete clause in CA, where it's unenforceable, then move to TX with the same job, is that clause now enforceable? If so, then how is it unethical to sign the contract? EDIT: if it's little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards, then is not not also a little unfair to judge a modern person on your father's ethical standards?
vinger 6y ago
Animals have honor and men have brains who make situational decisions. Not playing by the rules of business is not honorable it's naive. A contract is a business agreement. If a provision isn't legal the contract usually asks that only that clause is removed enforcing the remaining contract. If something isn't enforceable in your opinion but the company is asking for it and refusing it could kill the deal it wouldn't make sense to threaten the deal over an issue you know will be resolved in your favor? In reality companies who make you sign a non-compete will glady hire from an organzation they compete with. If you somehow know the non-compete isn't enforceable and you don't tell them is that amoral?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Not playing by the rules of business is not honorable it's naive. Behaving ethically does not imply allowing others to treat you badly. Recall I wrote that you can simply line out that clause, and explain it is unenforceable and you won't abide by it. You are then on ethical ground. If that "kills the deal" then do you really want to work for them? > In reality companies who make you sign a non-compete will glady hire from an organzation they compete with. Your ethics are about you, not the other party. > If you somehow know the non-compete isn't enforceable and you don't tell them is that amoral? Sensible people run contracts by their own lawyer - the lawyer for the other party has a fundamental conflict of interest. If you're signing a contract for $150,000 a year, don't you agree it makes sense to drop $400 on a lawyer to check it? You'll get better advice than on HackerNews - and your lawyer will be ethically obliged to inform you about these things. Besides, having unenforceable clauses in a contract is neither illegal nor unethical. It's just unenforceable. Not everyone needs the threat of civil court to keep their agreements.
  - vinger 6y ago
    The entire point of a contract is to have a document that can be brought to civil court. If you and your employer don't feel you need one and can rely on ethics alone why sign? I think the reason why companies want you sign one is because in the event of you leaving, companies can't enforce a word of mouth agreement in court. Whatever is in your contract is what you agreed to but local laws might superseed your agreement. This doesn't make you amoral if you don't educate a company on local laws. This is solely the company's responsibility. You get no hero points and your family is not better off. Telling a company their contract is not legal can be seen as a little rude and could give you a bad reputation.
stale2002 6y ago
> In the long term In the long term the world would be better off if companies that are doing bad things get negative consequences. So that is good, not bad. If more people punished bad actors, it would be better. > fewer and fewer people will want to do business More people causing negative consequences to bad companies is a good thing though! > Each of us gets to choose what we are And everyone choosing to cause damage to bad actors is a good thing. You choose to let them get away with bad actions, and the other people who actually want to make the world a better place choose to correctly cause consequences on bad actors. The "animals" are the people who stand by and do nothing against bad actors.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  A father and his son were strolling down the street one day, and as they passed a woman the father tipped his hat to her. His son says, "father, why did you tip your hat to her? She's no lady, she's the town prostitute." His father says, "son, you're right. She is no lady. But I'm a gentleman." > You choose to let them get away with bad actions Nope. I said line it out. > More people causing negative consequences to bad companies is a good thing though! Behaving unethically makes you just as bad.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Prositutes don't deserve bad things to happen to them. Companies that screw over employees do though. A better example would be tipping your hat to an assaulter, who mugs people. I would not respect someone who attacks others with physical violence. > Nope. I said line it out. And then they refuse to hire you, and hire someone else. That makes it pretty likely that they would get away with it, and screw over a different employee. > Behaving unethically makes you just as bad. Lets say you live in a medieval village, where there is a racist law that makes it legal for people to steal from or assault others, if they are of a certain race. So if you see a thief, currently mugging or attacking someone, then you would be just as bad as the thief if you engaged in self defense to stop them then? Because violence is bad? You would not only refuse to defend someone else from the thief, you would tip your hat to the assaulter! No. I a not going to respect the attacker. Yeah no. Defending others against a thief is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if we live in some world where the attacker is not engaging in any illegal actions.

loco5niner 6y ago

Just to be clear, you are claiming that doing the wrong thing because someone else is also doing a wrong thing is going to make things better because "they deserve it". Sounds like a vicious circle to me. Who is going to think that YOU "deserve it"? Also, by choosing to work for a bad actor, you would be enabling them, purely out of a selfish motive. People making ethical choices is one of the (many) things that make the world a better place.

stale2002 6y ago
> because someone else is also doing a wrong thing is going to make things better It is ok to do wrong things against people who are doing bad things to you, yes. The obvious example, would be you are being attacked, and you defend yourself with violence, which is normally "wrong". > Who is going to think that YOU "deserve it"? The other side is already engaging in these actions. Just accepting the bad actions against yourself, without a counter response, just leaves you open to being taken advantage of. > People making ethical choices is one of the (many) things that make the world a better place. Yes, and it is ethical to punish and retaliate against bad actors, so that they don't get away with the bad thing. In the same way that it is ethical to defend yourself against assault, even though violence is normally wrong.