5 ms·

A code of ethics requires quite a bit more certainty and precision. As written, this is rather vague. It sounds like someone could be somehow kicked out of YC j

by mkempe 12y ago

A code of ethics requires quite a bit more certainty and precision. As written, this is rather vague. It sounds like someone could be somehow kicked out of YC just because they're more or less disliked (who makes the decision? how?). The recommended behaviours are virtues, not values. Adherence to virtue is the principled pursuit of given values (e.g. honesty -> true to facts, integrity -> true to your beliefs and words, independence -> true to your own judgment). Here are examples of fairly strong codes of ethics relevant to engineers: - IEEE [1] - ACM [2] [1] http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html [2] http://www.acm.org/about/se-code http://www.acm.org/about/se-code

jamesaguilar 12y ago
Those seem plenty long winded, but no better in terms of precision. Selecting a random line from the ACM code: 4.01. Temper all technical judgments by the need to support and maintain human values. What does that mean? I say that a short bulleted list of expectations is going to be more easy to digest and adhere to. Someone could hardly be expected to even know all of the rules in the ACM code, to say nothing of following them.
- mkempe 12y ago
  Indeed, these codes are far from perfect, and fewer rules are best. ACM members are expected to know that code and abide by it.
- tinco 12y ago
  It isn't vague if human values is well defined. You can just look at your technical dilemma and go through the list of human values. If your technical solution compromises any of those values it is your moral obligation as a subscriber to the ACM ethical values to revise or otherwise mitigate your judgement.
  - jarrett 12y ago
    As far as I can tell, it's not defined in that document. If it were, what would that look like? What values would be on the list? How would you know whether a given action compromises one of those values?
    - mkempe 12y ago
      A good code of ethics includes aspects that require more context and incite more thinking. Maybe this particular rule is designed to make you ponder what you believe humanism is, and are you making decisions in accordance to it. Socrates wasn't providing laundry lists of rules -- but his method certainly helped many people think better and pursue better courses of action.
      - jarrett 12y ago
        > A good code of ethics includes aspects that require more context and incite more thinking. I agree that a good code of ethics could be that way. But I think that's less true if the code of ethics is coupled with a system of punishment. In a system where violations are punished, I think it's desirable for the rules to be as objective as possible. Otherwise, you risk arbitrary application and/or abuse of the rules. Further, well-meaning people should be able to read the rules, understand what is and is not permitted, and tailor their behavior accordingly. They should not have to worry that they will later be punished for breaking a rule they thought they were following.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
jseliger 12y ago
A code of ethics requires quite a bit more certainty and precision. As written, this is rather vague. In any situation like this there are trade-offs between vagueness and specificity; the more specific the document, the longer they get to be (try reading the contract of adhesion your credit card company forces you to "agree" to, or the terms of service on a big website). Even then, edge cases arise. In general, over time, overarching principles whose meaning can be applied to a specific case are better (think of the Ten Commandments, or the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as examples).
chacham15 12y ago
The Constitution of the United States was purposely written using very vague language and many argue that it is one of the best things that the founding fathers did.
- rquantz 12y ago
  Many may argue that, but that doesn't mean they're right. The bill of rights is mostly great, but the actual design of the government is pretty lousy, a series of compromises to keep slave states happy and a few vestiges of English rule mixed in. All of this combined with a reform process that makes it essentially impossible to fix the mistakes they made. I think the things "the founders" did in principle -- booting out the British and establishing a right of the people to choose their government, peaceful transfer of power, etc, better than the government they set up. Plus, yeah, that bill of rights is pretty great. So good job, antifederalists.
- ztratar 12y ago
  Not to mention the specific clause that states things must not only fall within the textual provisions of the document but also the spirit with which it was written.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    This is news to me.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Which clause would that be?
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      I suspect 'ztratar is referring, albeit not terribly articulately, to the Ninth Amendment.
      - twic 12y ago
        Why was this downvoted? If it's nonsense, could someone have the good graces to say why?
lsc 12y ago
the ethics of business are... way harder than the ethics of Engineering. Engineers occasionally have conflicts of interest with their employers and clients (e.g. when asked to build something clearly dangerous) but it's very, very rare. And Engineers are almost never asked to conceal relevant information from people they directly work with.. Business people face conflicts of interest with their customers and suppliers every day. In business? concealing relevant information is standard, in fact, you might be failing in your duty to your shareholders if you reveal relevant information to your customers or suppliers. But, you may be defrauding those customers or suppliers if you don't reveal enough information. This makes business ethics a lot more complex. Now, I agree that the YC ethics as written are super vague and making them more clear would be very good. In fact, I think YC has a chance to set a standard here. Considering how YC explicitly asks for hustlers, and people who push the line, one could even argue that they have a responsibility to make the line clear. However, it is an extremely difficult thing to do. When a task is beyond your means, is it better to put up a "better than nothing" attempt that doesn't completely solve the problem, or to put up nothing at all? I don't know.
- wpietri 12y ago
  I agree with you entirely on the trickiness of business ethics, but I'd be very skeptical of anything that is more precise. If it's too long to keep in one's head, it will be easily forgotten. And if it's complex enough to cover everything in some detail, there will be a lot of opportunity for hole-finding, rules-hacking, boundary-arguing, and confusion-sowing. Contrast that with the simplicity, say, of the Golden Rule, or Rawls' Veil of Ignorance [1], or the Eightfold Path [2]. Those are trickier to apply, because you have to do the unpacking yourself. But they're also harder to fool yourself and fool others with. I think that's true generally, but especially so for YC. If they stick with sufficiently broad principles and heuristics, then they can finish up with, "... and if you aren't sure, ask." YC has a lot of high-touch mentorship, and mentoring is one of the best way to deal with ethical questions. They also have a strong interest in making sure YC startups behave reasonably well. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path
brudgers 12y ago
[IANAL] This code of ethics is exactly for the purpose of establishing the means to kick people out of YC. It's essentially a legal document that covers any implied contracts in regard to privileges historically associated with having been a YC founder - e.g. participating in application reviews, a slightly different version of HN, and in particular it seems, the ability to market one's self as a 'YC founder.' [1] In short, it's directly about protecting the brand, and indirectly a tool for helping individual founders protect their reputation in times of extreme stress. The analogy that comes to mind is 'morality clauses' in professional sports contracts. It sets the bar higher than "Is it legal?". It_is_legal = worst(allowed_by_law) The merit of YC giving themselves the option to kick out people they don't like is something about which we can argue endlessly. Personally, I'm OK with it. It's firing the customer, and that's good business and a way for a business to maintain standards. [1] This one is ontologically interesting. Can YC Foundership really be revoked? Isn't it an immutable fact that a person is a 'YC Founder' once the check clears? Is 'YC Founder' trademarked? If so, how does this sit with YC's general stance on intellectual property? Is my philosophical pondering itch scratched? It turns out, yes.
- Nimi 12y ago
  Pardon if this is slightly off-topic, but you mentioned a slightly different version of HN - this is the first time I hear about this. Could you please provide more details? 10x
  - brudgers 12y ago
    It comes up from time to time. I don't remember the details, but that they aren't particularly significant if my impression is correct.

by mkempe 12y ago

jamesaguilar 12y ago

Those seem plenty long winded, but no better in terms of precision. Selecting a random line from the ACM code: 4.01. Temper all technical judgments by the need to support and maintain human values. What does that mean? I say that a short bulleted list of expectations is going to be more easy to digest and adhere to. Someone could hardly be expected to even know all of the rules in the ACM code, to say nothing of following them.

mkempe 12y ago
Indeed, these codes are far from perfect, and fewer rules are best. ACM members are expected to know that code and abide by it.
tinco 12y ago
It isn't vague if human values is well defined. You can just look at your technical dilemma and go through the list of human values. If your technical solution compromises any of those values it is your moral obligation as a subscriber to the ACM ethical values to revise or otherwise mitigate your judgement.
- jarrett 12y ago
  As far as I can tell, it's not defined in that document. If it were, what would that look like? What values would be on the list? How would you know whether a given action compromises one of those values?
  - mkempe 12y ago
    A good code of ethics includes aspects that require more context and incite more thinking. Maybe this particular rule is designed to make you ponder what you believe humanism is, and are you making decisions in accordance to it. Socrates wasn't providing laundry lists of rules -- but his method certainly helped many people think better and pursue better courses of action.
    - jarrett 12y ago
      > A good code of ethics includes aspects that require more context and incite more thinking. I agree that a good code of ethics could be that way. But I think that's less true if the code of ethics is coupled with a system of punishment. In a system where violations are punished, I think it's desirable for the rules to be as objective as possible. Otherwise, you risk arbitrary application and/or abuse of the rules. Further, well-meaning people should be able to read the rules, understand what is and is not permitted, and tailor their behavior accordingly. They should not have to worry that they will later be punished for breaking a rule they thought they were following.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

jseliger 12y ago

A code of ethics requires quite a bit more certainty and precision. As written, this is rather vague. In any situation like this there are trade-offs between vagueness and specificity; the more specific the document, the longer they get to be (try reading the contract of adhesion your credit card company forces you to "agree" to, or the terms of service on a big website). Even then, edge cases arise. In general, over time, overarching principles whose meaning can be applied to a specific case are better (think of the Ten Commandments, or the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as examples).

chacham15 12y ago

The Constitution of the United States was purposely written using very vague language and many argue that it is one of the best things that the founding fathers did.

rquantz 12y ago
Many may argue that, but that doesn't mean they're right. The bill of rights is mostly great, but the actual design of the government is pretty lousy, a series of compromises to keep slave states happy and a few vestiges of English rule mixed in. All of this combined with a reform process that makes it essentially impossible to fix the mistakes they made. I think the things "the founders" did in principle -- booting out the British and establishing a right of the people to choose their government, peaceful transfer of power, etc, better than the government they set up. Plus, yeah, that bill of rights is pretty great. So good job, antifederalists.
ztratar 12y ago
Not to mention the specific clause that states things must not only fall within the textual provisions of the document but also the spirit with which it was written.
- rayiner 12y ago
  This is news to me.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Which clause would that be?
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    I suspect 'ztratar is referring, albeit not terribly articulately, to the Ninth Amendment.
    - twic 12y ago
      Why was this downvoted? If it's nonsense, could someone have the good graces to say why?

lsc 12y ago

the ethics of business are... way harder than the ethics of Engineering. Engineers occasionally have conflicts of interest with their employers and clients (e.g. when asked to build something clearly dangerous) but it's very, very rare. And Engineers are almost never asked to conceal relevant information from people they directly work with.. Business people face conflicts of interest with their customers and suppliers every day. In business? concealing relevant information is standard, in fact, you might be failing in your duty to your shareholders if you reveal relevant information to your customers or suppliers. But, you may be defrauding those customers or suppliers if you don't reveal enough information. This makes business ethics a lot more complex. Now, I agree that the YC ethics as written are super vague and making them more clear would be very good. In fact, I think YC has a chance to set a standard here. Considering how YC explicitly asks for hustlers, and people who push the line, one could even argue that they have a responsibility to make the line clear. However, it is an extremely difficult thing to do. When a task is beyond your means, is it better to put up a "better than nothing" attempt that doesn't completely solve the problem, or to put up nothing at all? I don't know.

wpietri 12y ago
I agree with you entirely on the trickiness of business ethics, but I'd be very skeptical of anything that is more precise. If it's too long to keep in one's head, it will be easily forgotten. And if it's complex enough to cover everything in some detail, there will be a lot of opportunity for hole-finding, rules-hacking, boundary-arguing, and confusion-sowing. Contrast that with the simplicity, say, of the Golden Rule, or Rawls' Veil of Ignorance [1], or the Eightfold Path [2]. Those are trickier to apply, because you have to do the unpacking yourself. But they're also harder to fool yourself and fool others with. I think that's true generally, but especially so for YC. If they stick with sufficiently broad principles and heuristics, then they can finish up with, "... and if you aren't sure, ask." YC has a lot of high-touch mentorship, and mentoring is one of the best way to deal with ethical questions. They also have a strong interest in making sure YC startups behave reasonably well. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

brudgers 12y ago

[IANAL] This code of ethics is exactly for the purpose of establishing the means to kick people out of YC. It's essentially a legal document that covers any implied contracts in regard to privileges historically associated with having been a YC founder - e.g. participating in application reviews, a slightly different version of HN, and in particular it seems, the ability to market one's self as a 'YC founder.' [1] In short, it's directly about protecting the brand, and indirectly a tool for helping individual founders protect their reputation in times of extreme stress. The analogy that comes to mind is 'morality clauses' in professional sports contracts. It sets the bar higher than "Is it legal?". It_is_legal = worst(allowed_by_law) The merit of YC giving themselves the option to kick out people they don't like is something about which we can argue endlessly. Personally, I'm OK with it. It's firing the customer, and that's good business and a way for a business to maintain standards. [1] This one is ontologically interesting. Can YC Foundership really be revoked? Isn't it an immutable fact that a person is a 'YC Founder' once the check clears? Is 'YC Founder' trademarked? If so, how does this sit with YC's general stance on intellectual property? Is my philosophical pondering itch scratched? It turns out, yes.

Nimi 12y ago
Pardon if this is slightly off-topic, but you mentioned a slightly different version of HN - this is the first time I hear about this. Could you please provide more details? 10x
- brudgers 12y ago
  It comes up from time to time. I don't remember the details, but that they aren't particularly significant if my impression is correct.