3 ms·
And your character was obvious to me the minute you said that "do no evil" is a more useful standard than "don't be evil". "Do no evil" is an impossible and th
by fpgeek 14y ago
And your character was obvious to me the minute you said that "do no evil" is a more useful standard than "don't be evil".
"Do no evil" is an impossible and therefore pointless standard. How many people do you know that have done no evil in their life? Have you? I've certainly made my share of arguably evil mistakes.
Now consider a company with tens of thousands of employees. Even if 1% of their employees (intentionally or not, per your standard) committed evil at work 1% of the time, that's still (on average) multiple incidents a day. Exactly how many days do you think "do no evil" would last before it was drowned in noise?
Yes, "don't be evil" is a more complicated and ambiguous judgement. But at least it is one that can meaningfully be made rather than an unreachable standard that's trotted out when it's convenient and ignored when it isn't.
- sixish 14y agoThe doctor's creed is "do no harm" or "never do harm", even though it's impossible for a doctor to never ever cause harm. They have this oath because they want to be held accountable for their mistakes. Doctors don't go around saying just "don't be harmful" or that as long as they have good intentions some harm is okay. The simple fact is that formulation "don't be evil" is intended to avoid accountability. You can overlook some evil because you perceive them as having good intentions. Maybe you should consider that an advertising company may have put more thought into their motto and how it affects your perception of them than you realize.