4 ms·

I agree. And, "just following orders" (i.e. "just doing his job") isn't a legal defense to following unlawful orders. Nor should it be a moral defense to doin

I agree. And, "just following orders" (i.e. "just doing his job") isn't a legal defense to following unlawful orders. Nor should it be a moral defense to doing unethical things just because there's a paycheck involved.

jjulius 4y ago
Can you tell us OP's "orders" were, though? Because at this point you're just speculating and assuming the worst. Your comment about people working for unethical companies for a paycheck also comes off as classist and out of touch. Edit: Hell, they said "ex" engineer. For all we know, they could have very well been there early on, taken issue with what they saw and then left because of that. Yet you and at least two others are assuming the worst and suggesting that they never be allowed to integrate with regular society. Jesus.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  Anyone who's been awake for the past 5 years knows how shitty and unethical a company Facebook is. If they'd been there since the beginning, they could have figured out how lets's say "flexible" Zuckerberg's ethics were. And there are plenty of companies that are ethically benign, if not doing real good in the world. To suggest that people should act ethically, even when money is involved, is not classist. And, if you think it is, consider what "class" a(n ex-) Facebook engineer is likely to fall into. (Hint: the one with the financial means to care about ethics.) And I will thank you very much to stop putting words in my mouth. I have not suggested that anyone not be able to reintegrate into society. I am, however, suggesting that they pay their dues back to society before doing so. Tell me: what acts do you feel are justified by "just following orders," and under what circumstances?
  - jjulius 4y ago
    Yet still not a single attempt to understand OP's perspective, actions there, time there, or reason for departure. Just an insistence on an immediate straight shot to, "Nope, they have dues that must be repaid no matter what". Got it. Edit: And again, I must emphasize nuance. People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics. I am surprised that this continuously seems so lost on HN users.
    - actually_a_dog 4y ago
      Not going to answer my direct questions to you, either, huh? Got it.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        >Not going to answer my direct questions to you, either, huh? ... it was a single question, and you edited it in as I was responding.
        actually_a_dog 4y ago
        You've seen it now, and I asked you to "consider" something as well.
        jjulius 4y ago
        You're coming off a bit more aggressive than this conversation necessitates. My response to your "consideration" is in my edit. Asking one to "consider" something is just that; asking them to think about it. It does not ask for a response (yet I did give you one while you were chastizing me for posting while you edited yours). >what acts do you feel are justified by "just following orders," and under what circumstances? There is a theme here - nuance. I've worked (past tense, and I'll have you know that part of the reason for my departure was my disagreement with this partnership) with FB as a partner in the past, and I am well aware of the incredibly wide variety of roles there. This is exactly why I am insisting that we talk to OP and learn more before we decide that they're a stain on society, need rehabilitation, whathaveyou.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      > People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics. You can not use the exceptions to morally justify the general case. Let's say that 2% of the people took a white-collar job there because of some absurd hardship. What is the excuse of the other 98%? Make it higher. Let's say that we are living in a bizarro world where 10% of the people that are well educated, talented, energetic and able to go through such a grueling interview process, yet they are facing some type of hardship. What is the excuse of the other 90%? Also, how long do they need to continue working there until they can resolve their situation? If they took a job just because of the pressure of their hardships, presumably they could settle the score after 2-4 years and then move on to something else? Are these people doing that?

jjulius 4y ago

Can you tell us OP's "orders" were, though? Because at this point you're just speculating and assuming the worst. Your comment about people working for unethical companies for a paycheck also comes off as classist and out of touch. Edit: Hell, they said "ex" engineer. For all we know, they could have very well been there early on, taken issue with what they saw and then left because of that. Yet you and at least two others are assuming the worst and suggesting that they never be allowed to integrate with regular society. Jesus.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
Anyone who's been awake for the past 5 years knows how shitty and unethical a company Facebook is. If they'd been there since the beginning, they could have figured out how lets's say "flexible" Zuckerberg's ethics were. And there are plenty of companies that are ethically benign, if not doing real good in the world. To suggest that people should act ethically, even when money is involved, is not classist. And, if you think it is, consider what "class" a(n ex-) Facebook engineer is likely to fall into. (Hint: the one with the financial means to care about ethics.) And I will thank you very much to stop putting words in my mouth. I have not suggested that anyone not be able to reintegrate into society. I am, however, suggesting that they pay their dues back to society before doing so. Tell me: what acts do you feel are justified by "just following orders," and under what circumstances?
- jjulius 4y ago
  Yet still not a single attempt to understand OP's perspective, actions there, time there, or reason for departure. Just an insistence on an immediate straight shot to, "Nope, they have dues that must be repaid no matter what". Got it. Edit: And again, I must emphasize nuance. People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics. I am surprised that this continuously seems so lost on HN users.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    Not going to answer my direct questions to you, either, huh? Got it.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      >Not going to answer my direct questions to you, either, huh? ... it was a single question, and you edited it in as I was responding.
      - actually_a_dog 4y ago
        You've seen it now, and I asked you to "consider" something as well.
        jjulius 4y ago
        You're coming off a bit more aggressive than this conversation necessitates. My response to your "consideration" is in my edit. Asking one to "consider" something is just that; asking them to think about it. It does not ask for a response (yet I did give you one while you were chastizing me for posting while you edited yours). >what acts do you feel are justified by "just following orders," and under what circumstances? There is a theme here - nuance. I've worked (past tense, and I'll have you know that part of the reason for my departure was my disagreement with this partnership) with FB as a partner in the past, and I am well aware of the incredibly wide variety of roles there. This is exactly why I am insisting that we talk to OP and learn more before we decide that they're a stain on society, need rehabilitation, whathaveyou.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics. You can not use the exceptions to morally justify the general case. Let's say that 2% of the people took a white-collar job there because of some absurd hardship. What is the excuse of the other 98%? Make it higher. Let's say that we are living in a bizarro world where 10% of the people that are well educated, talented, energetic and able to go through such a grueling interview process, yet they are facing some type of hardship. What is the excuse of the other 90%? Also, how long do they need to continue working there until they can resolve their situation? If they took a job just because of the pressure of their hardships, presumably they could settle the score after 2-4 years and then move on to something else? Are these people doing that?