4 ms·

I have a friend who has said that business ethics classes teach how to justify the answers the teacher (and later boss) wants instead of how to ask the real que

I have a friend who has said that business ethics classes teach how to justify the answers the teacher (and later boss) wants instead of how to ask the real questions. After all, what you get is a series of hypotheticals and asked what the right thing to do is and why. The hypotheticals are written so it's obvious what the teacher wants. So the goal is to justify the "right" answer. What my friend has argued instead is that the question you are asking, namely how do you evaluate a system? Is it one that encourages the cream to rise, or one where shit floats? To me that's the biggest question. If you have a business model where the unethical individuals rise to the top (and if they are up at the top that's a pretty good bet) then that's a bad system. If you have one that encourages the ethical folks to rise to the top, then you have a good system. Now what would I do? I have worked on projects that others found unethical that I did not, for example, an accounting system for a porn payment gateway. I knew others on the project who did have ethical problems with it. However, the people that ran my customer's business were great--- professional and ethical in terms of running a business. Similarly I had no problem writing documentation for Microsoft regarding interop of Linux and Windows, even though I was helping Microsoft with Windows marketing and I favor Linux for both ethical and more practical reasons. Whatever helps the customer run a mixed environment is ultimately a good thing. On the other hand, there are plenty of projects I wouldn't do even if they seem viable. I don't think Monsanto could pay me enough to do anything for them, for example. As for a next-gen pay-day-loan startup? I would want to have a serious talk with the founders and see if I was missing something. Maybe they have a clear idea on how to make it ethical? Also if I met the founders I might have a better idea if they were being predatory or rather trying to bring a better way for everyone into the industry. For international arms transactions? Hmmm.... given that countries usually buy arms from other countries, that would mostly be to facilitate organized crime. No thank you. If it's a gray area, you sit down and try to get a better sense of things. It is possible for a project to be ethical in a sea of poor ethics. If it is unambiguously unethical, I would not touch it. But if the people running it are clearly ethically impaired, then run like hell. I don't want to be Zinga'd. No thx.... ;-)

playeren 15y ago
Interesting point on evaluating a company based on individuals' code of ethics compared to their upwards career mobility. But the obvious (albeit a bit contrived) question would then be; What if the so-called unethical individuals measurably contributes more revenue and profit, than the ethical individuals? Is a CEO who allows lesser contributing individuals rise to the top of the management hierarchy, acting ethically towards the shareholders?
- einhverfr 15y ago
  Either the unethical individual will be seen as a liability down the road and thus not promoted, or the unethical individual will rise and gain additional power, and create problems later on.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  Basically every system rewards some behaviors and punishes others. If your system rewards bringing in money and to hell with ethics, then the shit will float, and eventually the folks at the top will be unethical psychopaths who will tear your company apart. If you have people who genuinely want to bring money in, work hard at this, and so forth, and they are ethical, and you reward them for both of these, then your business is protected and will not lose sight of the necessity to change the world for the better, which is, likely the heart of the business if it is any good. It's easy to sell products that benefit people, and things that make the world a better place do that.
  - playeren 15y ago
    >It's easy to sell products that benefit people, and things that make the world a better place do that. I know this is kind of a YC mantra, but I can't help but suspect it of being a matter of faith, more than a matter of fact. Is Groupon (val. ~12bn) really helping the world 24x more than, say, Atlassian (val. ~500mm)? If you're up for it - time for an even more contrived scenario. You are heading a successful start-up. You've proven your concept and it's time for your Series A. You sit down with your angel who has some introductions lined up for you. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. VC Inc. has a proven track record helping companies to record breaking public offerings in record time. ALL of their portfolio companies has so far successfully completed a "let-it-rain" IPO. Some also went bankrupt not so long after that. Some people accuse the company of using "dirty tricks" to obtain their goals. They also seem like total assholes when you meet them. H.E.R.O. & Partners VC on the other hand, seem like nice guys you could hang out with in private. They are a successful VC company in their own right, but their investments are a bit more hit-and-miss, and they've only been part in one moderately successful IPO. Both seem professional. Both have the tools to help your company. Who do you choose?

playeren 15y ago

Interesting point on evaluating a company based on individuals' code of ethics compared to their upwards career mobility. But the obvious (albeit a bit contrived) question would then be; What if the so-called unethical individuals measurably contributes more revenue and profit, than the ethical individuals? Is a CEO who allows lesser contributing individuals rise to the top of the management hierarchy, acting ethically towards the shareholders?

einhverfr 15y ago
Either the unethical individual will be seen as a liability down the road and thus not promoted, or the unethical individual will rise and gain additional power, and create problems later on.
einhverfr 15y ago
Basically every system rewards some behaviors and punishes others. If your system rewards bringing in money and to hell with ethics, then the shit will float, and eventually the folks at the top will be unethical psychopaths who will tear your company apart. If you have people who genuinely want to bring money in, work hard at this, and so forth, and they are ethical, and you reward them for both of these, then your business is protected and will not lose sight of the necessity to change the world for the better, which is, likely the heart of the business if it is any good. It's easy to sell products that benefit people, and things that make the world a better place do that.
- playeren 15y ago
  >It's easy to sell products that benefit people, and things that make the world a better place do that. I know this is kind of a YC mantra, but I can't help but suspect it of being a matter of faith, more than a matter of fact. Is Groupon (val. ~12bn) really helping the world 24x more than, say, Atlassian (val. ~500mm)? If you're up for it - time for an even more contrived scenario. You are heading a successful start-up. You've proven your concept and it's time for your Series A. You sit down with your angel who has some introductions lined up for you. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. VC Inc. has a proven track record helping companies to record breaking public offerings in record time. ALL of their portfolio companies has so far successfully completed a "let-it-rain" IPO. Some also went bankrupt not so long after that. Some people accuse the company of using "dirty tricks" to obtain their goals. They also seem like total assholes when you meet them. H.E.R.O. & Partners VC on the other hand, seem like nice guys you could hang out with in private. They are a successful VC company in their own right, but their investments are a bit more hit-and-miss, and they've only been part in one moderately successful IPO. Both seem professional. Both have the tools to help your company. Who do you choose?