Hacker News Reader

Comment by SubiculumCode | Hacker News Reader

I am pretty pro-union. However, in the case of Musk's enterprises, where there is this larger goal that is finally seeming to become possible, I am torn. I feel that anyone that works at these places should know and be a zealot for the Cause...but I suppose that Elon Musk probably should share his stakes with them a bit more, in that case.

edit: I believe workers should be treated fairly, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn. Why should this earn a negative vote?

View on HN

> edit: I believe workers should be treated fairly, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn. Why should this earn a negative vote?

I assume because this same argument, if you took it to ridiculous extremes, could be used to justify a whole range of terrible shit. Watch:

"I believe workers should not be enslaved, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn."

"I believe Musk should not torture underperforming workers, but I also want us to go to Mars. If 1 prevented 2, I would be torn."

I don't think you are actually willing to torture or enslave people so that humanity can get to Mars, but the way you constructed your argument leads in that direction, which is probably why it's being met with resistance.

I am not trying to create an axiom meant to generalize to all cases. I am just willing to be a little less pro-union (and this point has gotten lost here apparently) than I am usually when it comes to THIS set of companies, for very particular reasons. That is because I tend to think of these companies (at least SpaceX) more as causes than as companies. When you willingly work for a cause, you expect these things. If you are fighting to treat victims of war near battlefields, you might get be indanger, and the organization might not be able to do much about it, or provide you the kinds of benefits that would be deserving in a perfect world.

Noble causes don't tend to be for profit entities. If SpaceX was a charity or not for profit I'd agree, but it's a business and it is hurting the workers to accumulate more capital for the owners. It's goal of getting to Mars is nice but a separate set of moral concerns as long as it is attempting to maximize profit

> However, in the case of Musk's enterprises, where there is this larger goal that is finally seeming to become possible, I am torn. I feel that anyone that works at these places should know and be a zealot for the Cause...

While critics often mock the “cult” of Musk, his defenders usually deny the characterization. You rarely see such an explicit acknowledgment and endorsement of it.

The honesty is refreshing, I guess, even if the content is appalling.

'Cult of Musk' suggests it is about Musk, and not about the cause (of going to Mars).

I think we can all agree that some types of work are dangerous and poorly paid, but people choose to do it because they believe in a cause. For example, relief work in war-zones. I just tend to think of Space-X as a geeky way of doing that.

I'm not sure the hundreds of domestic solar manufacturer employees who suddenly discovered they were "underperforming" yesterday are likely to agree that humanity's chances of reaching Mars are contingent on their mute acceptance of the dangers to their livelihoods of such such capricious management...

> 'Cult of Musk' suggests it is about Musk, and not about the cause (of going to Mars).

Cults are usually devoted to a cause external to the cult leader, in the service of which the leader is seen as a uniquely visionary or inspired leader.

I believe there are a host of other companies striving for the same goal, being SpaceX the loudest one.

How dare you try to introduce subtlety and nuance to our inflexible, ideological worldviews!

Maybe the negative votes are from the workers you would consider treating unfairly in that scenario. That is also reasonable.

Well given two polarized positions, expressing sympathy for both positions makes twice the enemies, and half the friends.

The ends justify the means, eh?

Sometimes, indeed yes. Not always. If you want to live in a black and white world go ahead. Best of luck to you.

In any case, as I said, I am torn. That is why I advise that anyone that works for them be dedicated to the cause. Because while a lot of startups and the like profess to "change the world" Elon Musk's enterprises ARE changing the world to the kind of world I want to live in. Sometime visions need sacrifices.

That said, Elon Musk should probably offer non-insubstantial stakes in the company to every worker.

Scott Alexander had a blog post recently discussing "moral offsets" and the distinction between axiology, morality, and law. It helped clarify my own mental framework and vocabulary for thinking through these sorts of "do the ends justify the means?" issues. I found it to be interesting food for thought and you may feel likewise, it's a very thought-provoking read (as is nearly everything on Scott's site).

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/28/contra-askell-on-moral-...

Thanks for the link. Indeed a post for thought.

Which cause?

Employees are free to convert their paycheck into stocks. The better they (as a whole) do, the more profit each gets.

Not if they are not being paid enough to have the capital to invest. That is why I suggested that in lieu of increased pay, that workers be further compensated in more stock

They are being paid enough to invest.

Then what is their complaint exactly?

If they're not paid enough to invest, they probably need that extra compensation in cash. If they're smart enough to work at Tesla, they're smart enough to invest as they see fit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com