5 ms·
It might be a good idea for companies to be up front about their significant moral choices. Then regardless of disgruntled employees, they can defend and discu
by Nevermark 5y ago
It might be a good idea for companies to be up front about their significant moral choices.
Then regardless of disgruntled employees, they can defend and discuss their behavior and any mistakes with a majority of consistent internal and external communications.
And maybe avoid doing most really bad things.
This consistency of purpose and avoidance of causing surreptitious harm is called “integrity”.
- elmomle 5y agoAs Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." When over a trillion dollars of value is on the line, history tells us that people will generally act poorly and come up with any plausible justification for why they're doing good. This isn't to excuse Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, or anybody else in a decision-making position. The first time your business model is widely seen to have played a determining role in a genocide [1], the ethical decision is unambiguous--it's a good time to step down and take your billions to lobby against that business model. There's no moral excuse for doing otherwise. [1] https://time.com/5197039/un-facebook-myanmar-rohingya-violence/ https://time.com/5197039/un-facebook-myanmar-rohingya-violen...
- fragmede 5y agoIs that most ethical? I can think of several people where the world would be worse off if they owned a controlling interest in Facebook. Eg Ergodan.