2 ms·
What? I want to put together a yo dawg meme for this but I’m too lazy. This is just another corporate cog rationalization. Unless your company is rocketing tow
by svnt 6y ago
What? I want to put together a yo dawg meme for this but I’m too lazy. This is just another corporate cog rationalization.
Unless your company is rocketing toward bankruptcy, your salary is by definition a (much) smaller number than the impact your work has on the world. You cannot offset your day job even by what seems to you a large fraction of your personal income.
- mhb 6y agoIt's a Peter Singer rationalization and is essentially another version of the shallow pond parable. Instead of destroying a nice pair of shoes, Jeff is, arguably, making the world worse by working on ads. But he's making it more better by using his salary to help people.
- fartcannon 6y agoI would argue it's the reverse that's true. He's making it significantly worse than his relatively speaking small contributions make better. If I design advanced weapons, but donate my salary to charity. The good I do is temporary, but the advanced weapon technology can kill, and repress indefinitely.
- mhb 6y agoIt seems like it would depend on the details. In your example, I might agree that there is net harm to the world. But in other cases, and maybe Jeff's, the harm done by working on ads may be more than offset by the lives saved. Since Jeff is a thoughtful guy and this is important to him, I'm inclined to think that he is producing net good. If you can convince him otherwise, he'd probably change what he's doing.
- fartcannon 6y agoAt best his work is annoying to a lot of peoole. At worst, he profits (a great deal, I might add) from a industry that exploits, manipulates, and coerces. It's not really my or anyone elses job to convince him.