Slashdot Mirror
Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?
Nerval's Lobster writes As an emerging company in a hotly contested space, Uber already had a reputation for playing hardball with competitors, even before reports leaked of one of its executives threatening to dig into the private lives of journalists. Faced with a vicious competitive landscape, Uber executives probably feel they have little choice but to plunge into multi-front battle. As the saying goes, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail; and when you're a startup that thinks it's besieged from all sides by entities that seem determined to shut you down, sometimes your executives feel the need to take any measure in order to keep things going, even if those measures are ethically questionable. As more than one analyst has pointed out, Uber isn't the first company in America to triumph through a combination of grit and ethically questionable tactics; but it's also not the first to implode thanks to the latter. Is a moral compass (or at least the appearance of one) a hindrance or a help for startups?
Morality is for the working class. If you want to succeed in a capitalist economy, it's better to be amoral.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
pour it down my pants, it does what it has to and then I'm fine again.
It is obviously a help for start-ups until the consumer gives a shit about what a company does ethically.
The question should be is a moral compass a help to society. Then the follow up is: What should we do given that we know a moral compass is a benefit to society but almost 0% of companies have one.
I thought this might be another Haselton story.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
I'd say that on the short term morality is a hindrance. But even if your morally questionable decisions don't cause your startup to implode, would you really want to be part of the kind of company it would become?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
With regards to the comments the execs made about harassing reporters and such...
It should be pointed out that Reports act exactly as he suggested others do.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
for Bill Gates.
+1.
Perhaps a company should be rated as how well it fits its company charter rather than pure profit. It would allow a consistent logic applied to non-profits and businesses alike, and allow people to decide which kind of companies they do business with.
Once you get to be too big to fail, you also become too big to jail. Banksters like Jamie Dimon would simply call the fed and ask it to call off this investigation or that probe. So it is beyond question lack of moral compass helps the big companies. It is when they are small people are debating about it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Companies don't have "moral compasses" - the people working in them do.
If you have a moral compass that works, are you willing to toss your morals aside, or work for/with people who do not possess the same values?
If the answer is no to the first part, then you don't need to answer the second part.
If the answer is yes to the second part, then you're just negotiating the price at which you are willing to prostitute your "morals."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
When a journalist writes a bulls--t story about you ought to know whos paying their bills and who their friends are. The Linux community had to deal with that for years
when "journalists" would write hit pieces on linux during the SCO trials. Does that mean they ought to be Doxxed and harassed at home? Hell no but knowing if they are getting paid by rivals and are friends of your enemies is damn useful.
1.
...
2.
4. PROFIT!
Since most business are decidedly not moral, being moral and playing on that morality should/would be successful. Just don't declare to "Don't be evil" and then do the opposite. Being moral is always the right thing to do despite the possible loss of profit. In the end, the moral company wins. Look no further than at every large IT player out there. Who really trusts them? Why? Because they acted immorally for money. Don't be that guy.
If you have a moral compass, it can help you determine the right thing to do and the right path to follow. And (cynically) based on your company's risk tolerance for the type and amount of bad PR, it can help you determine how far to deviate from that path.
I should never have worked with them. On some level, I knew they were wrong for me. They got greedy and wanted more equity than we had agreed on. I left, the company failed. RIP yet another startup.
Morality is for the working class. If you want to succeed in a capitalist economy, it's better to be amoral.
I'm tempted to take this as an admission that the geek doesn't see himself as part of the working class. It would explain a lot.
It's "when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail", or some such.
Uber, like every other startup, has more than just a hammer.
Companies have no morals, no scruples, no 'next generation' to pass a legacy along. They exist solely to make money. Resources consumed don't matter, waste products don't matter, tomorrow doesn't matter. They exist as a legal entity, but would qualify as psychotic (at best) or sociopathic by any human measure.
Morality is based on being nice to the other guy in case you may need him to be nice to you some time. Companies don't care about that. The managers might, on an individual basis, but there's no reason to steer the company in that direction. Run it to beat the competition, and drop it if it fails. The company will feel no guilt or remorse or regret.
As an MBA (down-vote me already), morality of behavior is necessary for a firm to maintain its license to operate.
Note how we are talking about Uber here, and Uber is facing many injunctions and bans from operating due to its immoral behaviour.
Oh wait...that's no longer valid so the answer is having a moral compass isn't good to have in business at all. "Think of the poor stockholders!"
I'm assuming that the author managed to mangle the spelling of "hindrance". Mostly because I'd have to be appalled that an "editor" could neither run spellcheck nor recognize a misspelled word...
On the other hand, this is /., so I shouldn't be surprised....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
... and it is only a guess:
Most startups need a moral compass in order to recruit and retain employees who are invested in the success of the company. If the startup doesn't offer that, there is a high probability that quality employees will move on when better opportunities arise. (Examples are higher pay, better benefits, or a more stable job. These are all things that startups find difficult to provide.) Depending upon their clients, it may also serve to separate the startup from the competiton.
Yet Uber (and the likes) are not your typical startups. Since they are trying operate in a highly regulated industry, and in an industry where the regulations vary from place to place, they are very politicized. Unfortunately politicized issues make it very difficult to have a clean fight because those with a vested interest have the existing power structures (politicians, courts, etc.) on their side.
What a load of bullshit. That sociopath prick running the company is a bully. Many people aren't going to use uber because of this sunshine. Take your astroturfing elsewhere.
That's an interesting response. You are supporting your position by emotional strength - essentially saying that the poster has to back down or you'll respond into a full-blown emotional outburst (see bully).
When I first heard about Uber's plans the first thing that came to mind is "there's no law against publishing public information".
We have fairly clear rules about what's illegal in terms of gathering and publishing data. The police have no qualms about publishing names and addresses, and sometimes courteously withhold that information for the rich and powerful while using it against low-income people.
The press has no qualms about publishing data that people want to keep private, so long as publishing it would sell papers. If someone simply wishes to live out of the public eye, it's a challenge and "Look! We've got the scoop on Satoshi Nakamoto! Find out who he *really* is and why he needs to hide! (Are your children safe?)
If no one takes action to expose the journalists, if there's no consequences for their actions, what keeps the journalists honest? What incentive does any journalist have for journalistic integrity?
This seems like a cromulent quid-pro-quot. So long as no laws are broken, I'm fine with it.
If the purpose of a company (which is what startups are) is to make money, then anything that diminishes its capacity to make money is a hindrance. For example, not engaging in certain money making practices because of ethical reasons.
The public image of a company affects its ability to make money. However, the public image of a company is just that: an image. You don't need to actually be ethical, you only need to be perceived to be ethical to build a positive public image.
In short, a moral compass is at best neutral and at worst a hindrance to a startup.
when you're a startup that thinks it's besieged from all sides by entities that seem determined to shut you down, sometimes your executives feel the need to take any measure in order to keep things going, even if those measures are ethically questionable.
I think the simpler explanation for ethically questionable behaviour is that sometimes your executives are just complete jerks.
IF: you have a moral compass.
THEN: having a moral compass is a help to your achieving your ends.
On the other hand,
IF: you don't have a moral compass.
THEN: not having a moral compass is a help to your achieving your ends.
In other words the question is meaningless unless you stipulate "help or hinderance to what". Also you need to specify the behavioral flexibility of the people in question. Someone who is strictly immoral -- that is to say he never does anything moral if he has an evil alternative -- would have to be irrational. The eviler alternative is not always the rational choice.
Also moral/amoral doesn't capture everything about somebody's thinking and character. Some people are amoral and shortsighted. Others are amoral but can see the long term value of curbing their behavior. On the other hand some people are strictly moral but rigid and unimaginative. Others are highly moral and creative. To a creative person an obstacle is often an opportunity.
Ultimately you are who you are: goodie-two-shoes or amoral bastard or something in between. Whatever you are you have to make that work for yourself.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Only VCs can answer that question, and they're not on an irrelevant site like this.
Depending on what one's version of "morality" is, it might or might not be a hindrance.
I know my version of morality has been a hindrance to me in starting up a business. If I dealt with the business side of things, rather than the technology side I'd likely have even more problems.
Simply put, if if business were a video game the most successful business people would be those power gaming the crap out of everything. Funny thing is, when gamers play video games this way they're often mocked for "avoiding realism".
Ethics and morality are for the poor, it keeps them docile.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If the CEO lacks a moral compass and is prepared to do anything, screw over friends, colleges and business rivals then that would promote the interests of the company. Unfortunately in the process he'll do immeasurable damage to the rest of the industry. Take the case of Bill Gates, or the rail-and-oil robber barons from a previous century.
Microsoft Sues Samsung
Microsoft Litigation
"Is a Moral Compass a Hinderance Or a Help For Startups?"
Having worked for several startups to large Fortune 50 companies, I'll fit this into Silicon Valley's 2 common choices that directly tie into their exit strategies:
a. sell the company/IP business plan: No (don't need morals)
b. IPO strategy business plan: Yes (cause you're trying to sustain the company, hence its business philosophy)
...that the people running startups have any choice in the matter. Aren't they too busy wooing investors to give much thought to who's lending them that money and what they'll want for it later?
I will NEVER EVER use any product with Uber as a company name. If you treat your business opponents with that kind of sleaze and outright cheating, it is only a matter of time before they treat their customers (me!) with the same sleazy behavior and start cheating them too.
...on what you consider a "hindrance." It also depends upon the industry.
If your only measure of success is the fiscal bottom line, then a [good] moral compass may be a "hindrance."
Also, there are certain industries where a good moral compass is more than just a "hindrance." It's a deadly flaw.
In the case of Uber, I'm not sure if folks are aware of who runs the US cab companies ( HINT: It ain't the Boy Scouts). Anyone playing in that cesspit had better be tough, sleazy and willing to fight hard (possibly with live ammo).
It's nice to be rich (I guess), but it's also nice to be alive, happy and not having to drive everywhere in armored SUVs, accompanied by armed consiglieri.
THE real problem is that capitalism, communism etc, etc all lack something vital in their philosophy. We who live in a capitalistic society can see how unworkable the other ism's are. But it does not take long to see how we under the guise of business sell out all that is great about ourselves. How we only think about our own personal gain at the expense of others. This story line being a good example. How far have we gone when it even have to be asked if immoral is a good thing?
It is that selfish attitude which is a big part of the underlying problem. Truth is where ethical pro-survival desicions comes from. Having knownledge about life and how it works. From being able to look into the future and see what any particular direction of actions lead to.
When you live in a society of dog eat dog you will have a really hard time being an honest ethical being who value helping others. Which, by the way, unless you can and do, makes you kind of useless. Even to yourself in the long run. Life will not be fun or fulfilling. If you are being honest to yourself.
Money is thought to buy happiness. It does not buy any such thing. What it can do is provide temporary relief and be a useable energy to be useful with, to be more valuable to others by making it easy for you to take pro-survival actions, as your daily needs will be easily met.
People with lots of money are not known for actually being any happier than those without. They can look happy, especially in the eyes of the poor who have to fight for everything, but you sit down and talk to him and you'll quickly discover all his problems, which compared to a poor man, are often humungus.
It's the whole mix of life in a universe built on force which gives the appearance of having to have a dog eat dog attitude to survive. Truth is that is what is holding you down, what is preventing you from finding true happiness. Deep inside we all have a moral compass. Some may have buried it under years of bad decisions and actions. But it can be dug out again.
I've walked with gangs, pimps, pushers and killers, as well as multi-millionairs, inventors, housewives, cops, factory workers, etc in societies from all over the world. I see what those who are really happy have, and what those who struggle, are poor etc, have. All ism's have the same fundamental flaw which bring the people who follow it down, which really boils down to not having enough knowledge of how life works and what various actions lead to.
The way out of this mess depend on one primary thing which though it cannot make it by itself, but without it true success and happiness is not possible. That is caring. It undercuts all and everything. You care about the quality of work you produce, you care about your neighbors, strangers on the street, including those who are not acting as your friend. Once you demonstrate the ability to care about yourself, your immediate environment on an ever growing sphere, you of course need to have a clue about life and how it works. You will also need to be productive and create something of value to others. That can be something as simple as giving a helping hand, and of course creating something that helps a lot of people.
In a society where people don't know the difference between ethics and morals, between pro-survival and counter survival life can indeed be very tough. When you do something unselfish and are greeted by threats you are actually being successful as you are impacting that selfish attitude. When there is no noise you know nothing effective is being done. Society is built on the backs on the few hard working and effective people. They are what stands between us and total chaos, which side do you stand on?
Only the tigers survive and even they have a hard time. It's time to be a tiger in your own eyes, start with something simple that you can do. Keep it up and increase as you become more able to. Be interested in life, not interesting. Observe what is and learn about it. When things get tough force yourself to smile, and look in the mirror when you do. It will give you something to smile about. When others complain look around and find something positive. And never give up.
That expression, I do not think it means what you think it means. The law of the instrument refers to an over-reliance on a certain tool. The expression in no way implies aggressive or negative behavior.
Moral is an obligation in any case. Amoral means you tolerate antisocial and inhuman behaviour. Just think about it.
How come all the Bennet haters are not complaining that this isn't tech news?
http://www.theamericanconserva...
"This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments."
I would add "community" and "health" as public goods government should also help support.
BTW, to underscore the point that charity only tends to work well in communities where people are well known to each other (either that or an abstract gifte economy like JP Hogan wrote about), see: ... ...
"Switzerland's shame: The children used as cheap farm labour"
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
"Gogniat, his brother and two sisters were "contract children" or verdingkinder as they are known in Switzerland. The practice of using children as cheap labour on farms and in homes began in the 1850s and it continued into the second half of the 20th Century. Historian Loretta Seglias says children were taken away for "economic reasons most of the time⦠up until World War Two Switzerland was not a wealthy country, and a lot of the people were poor". Agriculture was not mechanised and so farms needed child labour.
If a child became orphaned, a parent was unmarried, there was fear of neglect, or you had the misfortune to be poor, the communities would intervene. Authorities tried to find the cheapest way to look after these children, so they took them out of their families and placed them in foster families.
The extent to which these children were treated as commodities is demonstrated by the fact that there are cases even in the early 20th Century where they were herded into a village square and sold at public auction.
"Children didn't know what was happening to them, why they were taken away, why they couldn't go home, see their parents, why they were being abused and no-one believed them," she says.
"The other thing is the lack of love. Being in a family where you are not part of the family, you are just there for working." And it left a devastating mark for the rest of the children's lives. Some have huge psychological problems, difficulties with getting involved with others and their own families. For others it was too much to bear. Some committed suicide after such a childhood.
Social workers did make visits. David Gogniat says his family had no telephone, so when a social worker called a house in the v
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw
Casteism
Moral and ethical behavior may not allow for the überaggressive push into established or new markets, it may be in the way of short term profits, but it is the base for long term success. People don't like it if they get screwed and they remember it for a very long time. Everyone who was done wrong by Über or read about it (by now quite many people) will not make this service their first choice. I do not know what Über's business plan is, maybe they just want to be like a thief, grab the money and run. If they want to be around a few years from now then changing behavior is long overdue. As a company it is always better to voluntarily improve the own standing before others make you do it.