Comment by clairity | Hacker News Reader

Comment by clairity | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> And their money is just as good for hiring programmers and renting servers as anyone else's.

maybe you didn't mean it this way, but i was struck by the nonchalance of this statement, as if being able to spend money justifies taking the investment. and i presume that's exactly why the article was written, to question that kind of stance.

now i love tech, and will defend our ability to progress and advance and make new things where there were none. and sometimes that requires compromise, like taking money from flawed people and institutions (as we all are). but none of us gets a free pass from morality, not even in business. these need to be considered, weighed and balanced decisions.

just because we codify our morality in law and abdicate enforcement to police doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold each other acccountable as well. in fact, holding each other accountable is crucial to ensuring a fair and just society. sometimes we must sacrifice a bit today to make sure we have justice tomorrow. a functioning society requires that we keep each others' avarice in check.

> but none of us gets a free pass from morality, not even in business

What? That's news to me. What about the entire defence industry? What about all the politicians that take a cushy job in the companies they helped during their time in office and who can be directly held accountable by the electorate? And why should anyone question the Saudis when they just signed a multi billion dollar weapon deal with the US government. Your statement sounds very naive.

So you are saying you don't have any use for the idea of morality. Luckily most people don't think that way and think being good is a desirable trait.

> So you are saying you don't have any use for the idea of morality.

To a degree I agree with this statement though. Morality in politics and corporations seems to be purely a tool for those without morality. That is to say, "X would never do that, why do we need laws for it?"

As far as I'm concerned, morality is for a person, unique and without power. If any (meaningful, I guess) power is obtained, such as in companies and politicians, checks and balances need to be in place to prevent abuse, corruption, etc.

We seriously need vast and in depth auditing in politics, because morality is long failed the world.

The checks and balances are constructed from ideas about ethics. You can not have one without the other.

Of course - but why would we trust politicians to have the ethics/morality to construct their own checks and balances?

My point is that politicians cannot be relied upon to have morality. Checks and balances are needed to ensure even those without morals adhere to some sane laws.

Name checks out :)

yes, you should be upset at those things. that's exactly what i'm talking about. don't just accept unethical behavior as fait acccompli. say something about it. let your voice be heard, by the people involved, as well as the people around you. particularly when it involves institutions like corporations and governments that people like to hide behind.

I honestly can't tell if you're being ironic, or claiming that two wrongs make a right.

I think they have the correct understanding of the is/ought dichotomy. You absolutely shouldn't get a free pass from morality. It doesn't change the fact that, most of the time, you absolutely do.

To the list of examples of people getting a free pass from morality, I'd add the entire advertising industry, and quite a lot of stuff done in journalism. And many small business owners.

Whose morals? Yours? Mine? It's not easy to get people to agree on what is moral beyond things like murder.

Well, mine, clearly. Any discussion to the contrary is dangerous and should be silenced. Or at least be done in private away from everyone else.

Hear that! Opinions I disagree with are literally violence, and suppression by physical means is justifiable self defense!

/sarcasm

Even murder...

The population is large and diverse. There are lots of people willing to begin startups. Some won't accept Saudi money, some will. Those who will survive better. It's as simple as that - Saudi money created a lot of the tech industry, so the survival bias is what creates a tech industry willing to accept that money.

Nice words, but unfortunately money is all that matters at end of the day.

If most people had the same philosophy you described, USA would have stopped ALL oil imports after 9/11, and start massive investments in electric vehicles and public transportation right then.

Some people just don't care where the money comes from, and just want to put together the best deal.

If a US investor offers you $50m for 10% of your company, and a Saudi investor offers you $100m for 10% of your company -- which one would you take?

What if the US investor is Harvey Weinstein and you've just found out he's a terrible person? Are you obligated to go find other investors at (presumably) worse terms and buy him out?

What if Al Capone offers you 200m for 10%?

> but none of us gets a free pass from morality, not even in business.

What? It's certainly not the business role to make any moral decisions - while we don't yet have true simple responsibility principle in our society, we're thankfully have some separation of responsibility. If you think that a certain country is immoral and we shouldn't do business with it, lobby for sanctions - this way all businesses will have to abide, without (1) doing things that are completely out of their responsibilities (passing judgement) and (2) failing at their main mission - ROI - by voluntarily giving up competitive advantage.

> What? It's certainly not the business role to make any moral decisions

You forget that businesses don't make decisions at all. A business is not a person, it has no capability to make decisions. The employees that work for the company make the decisions, and they certainly have an obligation to behave ethically.

> they certainly have an obligation to behave ethically

What? How exactly did they enter into this obligation? Also, how on Earth can you have an obligation that involves a term that everyone interprets in his own way?

> How exactly did they enter into this obligation?

By being born.

US government has proped up Saudia for years US states and cities and have taken billions in investment form Arab countries I don't get why this question is being asked of the US tech industry alone.

Because traditional media like newspapers, even one like NYT that's handled the last couple of decades as well as any, never miss a chance to take a potshot at the upstarts over in SV, especially when something like the current election influence brouhaha has them already on the back foot.

You're right; it would be much more honest to ask about the influence of Saudi money and Saudi oil in American business, government, and society more generally. But that's not a conversation anyone close to power wants to have; for one thing, the conclusions are uncomfortable, and for another, no one's hands are clean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com