'Jeff Bezos is Wrong, Tech Workers Are Not Bullies' (ft.com)

Silicon Valley employees have a right and duty to protest when we think projects are unethical, writes Laura Nolan, who recently left Google. From her opinion piece for Financial Times: Messrs Bezos and Bloomberg paint Amazon and Google as victims, pushed around by powerful employees who do not care about patriotism. This is absurd. Google and Amazon, and the DoD for that matter, are some of the most dominant institutions the world has known. Mr Bezos recently became the richest man in modern history. Mr Bloomberg is not far behind on the list of the world's wealthiest. Demanding that such power be held to account is common sense.

Rank-and-file tech employees, by contrast, do not have the same leverage. Ordinary Amazon employees -- the median annual salary is less than Mr Bezos earns in 10 seconds -- have been aggressively discouraged from unionising. Microsoft fired a team of contract engineers after they voted to unionise and as yet there is no tech worker union. I believe Silicon Valley leaders have historically put profit ahead of employee livelihood and whatever perks these companies provide come at the discretion of bosses, and are less a reflection of individual merit than of employer convenience.

It is significant, then, that over the past year we've seen a groundswell of worker dissent as thousands of employees at Google, Microsoft, Amazon and elsewhere have pushed back against projects and personnel decisions they consider unethical. I am part of this growing tech workers' movement. We believe we have a duty to resist the oppressive and unethical application of the powerful technology we build, and a right to know how our work is used.

Comments

Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying?

[llamalad]

But being aggressively anti-union and using your control over an economic behemoth to keep salaries down and workers firmly under your thumb... that's not bullying at all, right?

Not a Problem, As Long As

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> We believe we have a duty to resist the oppressive and unethical application of the powerful technology we build, and a right to know how our work is used.

As long as I have the right to hire people who don't care about how what I just paid you to build is used instead of you, we have a deal.

(Rent-a-coder, FTW.)

Re:Not a Problem, As Long As

[AmiMoJo]

Go ahead if you don't care about quality and consider engineers to be commodity items. In fact why not just shift your engineering department to India, save a few bucks at the same time.

All good engineers care about how their products are used, because it's vital to understand the use cases to make a good product. Some small subset will have no ethical qualms too, but that's a pretty shallow talent pool to hire from.

Re:Not a Problem, As Long As

[Fringe]

All good engineers care about how their products are used, because it's vital to understand the use cases to make a good product.

What a biased and self-serving proclamation! Most "good" engineers want to build cool stuff and get paid to do it. And their idea of cool varies by engineer, but often does not extend to the entire product. Take most open source libraries - they are cool, but don't constrain the product using them.

Being a "good" citizen has almost nothing necessarily in common with being a "good" engineer, especially as "good" is measured differently. Today's good citizen is very different from one a few decades ago, while good engineering is less dependent on society's capricious fads.

Re:Not a Problem, As Long As

[thewolfkin]

>> We believe we have a duty to resist the oppressive and unethical application of the powerful technology we build, and a right to know how our work is used. As long as I have the right to hire people who don't care about how what I just paid you to build is used instead of you, we have a deal. (Rent-a-coder, FTW.)

you have the right to be a dick with your company but you can't then complain that your employees are unpatriotic when they complain.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[alvinrod]

It isn't bullying, but acting victimized has become the go to tactic of the day to gain attention or sympathy, so it's hardly surprising to see corporations utilizing this tactic. Once you've established that you're the victim in the scenario, it apparently grants carte blanche to be as much of a dick yourself as you care to be. Anyone who disagrees can be accused of victim blaming, being on the side of the bullies, or whatever other nonsense someone wants to spew.

The behavior is hardly new, but I think Twitter and other social media platforms handed it such a megaphone that no one is quite sure how to react.

Human greed in a nutshell

[lorinc]

Humans trying to make a profit out of the exploitation of other humans. Other humans say it's unfair and oppose resistance. News at 11.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[cascadingstylesheet]

But being aggressively anti-union and using your control over an economic behemoth to keep salaries down and workers firmly under your thumb... that's not bullying at all, right?

The first problem is: who gets to decide what's unethical?

Re: Workers opposing unethical projects is bullyin

[Zero__Kelvin]

So you agree with anyone who isn't a moron ... That Bezos is playing the victim?

All about the narrative

[rsilvergun]

this is the same line of thinking that has working class people railing against "elites" at their local University in the form of doctors, scientists, economist and sociologists but then somehow convinced that the likes of the Koch brothers and Donald Trump are regular Joes like them.

It's a narrative used to manipulate the working class into accepting less pay and fewer benefits. It's easy to push that narrative because the actual elites, the billionaires who run things, also own all the media. Bezos for example owns the Washington Post. Koch media is huge (heck, if you play videogames odds are you're playing with your Koch :), they own multiple studios ). And don't get me started on Sinclair media, we'll be here listening to me rant all day.

Re:All about the narrative

[DNS-and-BIND]

It is these elites who came up with ideas that devastated the working class in America. Whose idea was NAFTA? It was the Democrat elites who got that passed. Whose idea was the Iraq war? Neo-conservative elites. Whose idea was the TPP? Everybody's elites.

Long-term processes of income redistribution from working people to everyone else, non-working welfare recipients as well as the very rich, had been evident for at least two decades. Those who voted for Trump have legitimate grievances long ignored, quite cynically, by both parties. The only thing that really mattered to Americans: the urgent need to mobilize government policies to increase American jobs and wages, in firm opposition to all the competing international and planetary priorities continuously proffered by elite Americans and their core institutions, along with Pope Francis and other leading figures.

Everyday I get to hear ultra-wealthy, gated-community, coastal elite, cliquish, $9 per cup coffee, outsourcing types loudly wring their hands with each other over theoretical boutique issues like LGBT equality, illegal immigrant rights, or global warming in Africa or China, desperately hoping somebody notices how noble they are.

They seem completely ignorant (and if they aren't, are sneering, contemptuous and completely lacking in empathy) of the fact that their fellow citizens on the other side of the gate have resorted to opiates to escape hopelessness and economic despair. Most of the time, the talking points of these smug, circle jerks simply parrot Daily Kos or Huffington Post headlines, and demonstrate a significant lack of deep understanding of the issues. Their kids are at Yale and Berkeley, throwing tantrums like toddlers, because they heard something they don't agree with or challenges their beliefs.

They are the leftist versions of Donald Trump. Incredibly smug and condescending, supercilious, clinically suffering from late-stage Dunning-Kruger disease.

Re:All about the narrative

[malkavian]

I'd kinda disagree; you've come up with a wide spread of "Elites". Doctors, by and large are bashed by the left, who have the latest Woo treatment of crystals and odd vegetables that cure cancer and invoke world peace.
Scientists are attacked from all sides, as we have the tendency to gather evidence, attack our own hypotheses, and what survives many people attacking the hypothesis is what ends up being considered firm enough to be going on with. And that tends to stomp all over people's nice world views of anything from the latest snake oil Woo, to Climate Change.
Economists are useful, but speculative. Often times as predictors, you could flip a coin and be as accurate, but they come up with very interesting ideas. Even economists rail at economists.
Sociologists are bashed largely by the right, as they have a very vocal crowd who have the basis of science, but misapply it and use it as a bludgeon. That undermines a lot of the good work done, but there really is a LOT of shoddy sociology out there. This conflicts most prominently with people with conservative ideas, and quite often, scientists, doctors and economists. :)

So, the mixing of the elites, not quite so much the unified set.

The reason there's the possibility of pushing lower wages and fewer benefits is globalisation. Quite simply, there are more possibilities of filling your role, which makes it more open to lower negotiation, in the same way that mass production reduces the cost per item.
There are the higher paying jobs, but you need to exhibit the quality to the employer that makes you stand out. And even then, you only stand out in your area, which is a "lego block assembly" in the company as far as the corporate strategists are concerned.

The bubble that's been going on since about WW2 came crashing down a bit in 2009 with the Financial crisis. That'll take a long time to sort, and there will be a reduction in living standards against the curve. Also, Brexit coming up. Who knows what ripples that'll cause; could be almost nothing, could spook lots of markets, and will almost certainly upset the skillset balance in that area of the world (and could seriously change remuneration for certain roles).

The guys with the big money are simply playing to the rules that are presented to them, and having a shot at making them play to their advantage. That's what life does. Adapts, and tries to find advantage to thrive. Some of those guys are reasonably nice. Some are dicks. They're just people who'd played the game well, or had a family that play the game well.

People will treat you like people. To a company, you're a cell in the body. Most people don't have a problem getting an exfoliation treatment, or accept weight loss to go through leaner times, or lose the lard to be fit and healthy. Exactly how companies treat people. And there's only so much leeway on the grand scale that you can "not play the game" without being overtaken and eaten.

Ethics though, that's always a balance. A lot of the problem is that people have subjective morality rather than objective ethics, and base their determinations on insufficient evidence. I've served on research ethics boards before, and the determination of ethical standards is quite an intense process, and can be very lengthy. There's a lot of healthy debate, a dose of pragmatism, and hordes of supporting evidence from very strong sources (peer reviewed, meta analysis quality).
By the modern standard of "Standing up for what you believe in", the witch hunts were perfectly acceptable (after all, you were protecting people from the curses, despite evidence not actually stacking up), or the Crusades (you have to call out the heretics who don't believe what you do).
Reality is a vastly complex, and very nuanced beast. Most of the "narratives" are quite heavily contrived and blunt. Those that take the time to have a decent shot usually take books to read, or months/years of discussion.

The reason people rail against "the elites" is often because they have no idea what's going on

A rude awakening for recent college grads

[stevegee58]

I'm sorry to be the one to burst your bubbles and safe spaces. Here are a few facts for young workers recently graduated from college:
1) Every single company wants a piece of the lucrative DoD pie. The money is simply too big to pass up. This includes FAANG and all the other tech companies.
2) Companies are not moral beings. The sole purpose of companies is to make a return on shareholder equity. Period.
3) The apparent liberal bias of Google and Facebook et al is only so much posturing to retain employees and fit in with the prevailing west coast US culture. They are simply amoral and apolitical money makers.

Re:A rude awakening for recent college grads

[b0s0z0ku]

(2) Companies are run by humans. Humans have a duty to be moral, even if it reduces shareholder return. There was a company, I.G. Farben, in Germany, which knowingly furnished poison gas to the Nazis. Its chief chemist, Bruno Tesch, faced a firing squad for this in 1946 and rightly so.

Re:A rude awakening for recent college grads

[drinkypoo]

The sole purpose of companies is to make a return on shareholder equity. Period.

People often repeat this inaccurate meme, but the truth is that the purpose of companies is to fulfill their charter. You can found a company for a broad variety of purposes, and many of them have little to nothing to do with profit.

You have the right

[Anonymous Coward]

You also have the right to get another job.

Badmouthing your employers is an excellent way to remain unemployed.

Tech has traditionally resisted unionization...

[forkfail]

... be it mechanical engineering or quantum programming, as tech has always been, at the end of the day, and out of necessity, a meritocracy.

I'm told this is changing.

I've still got a few good years in me, and I love to mentor and teach the younger folks even more than I love to code these days. But when building things becomes more about "the feels" than actually building things, then the things that are supposed to be built, in short, won't be. Or at least, they won't be built anything as they should be.

I guess that I'm glad that I'll be done before things to through what I see an inevitable cycle through complete collapse to remind us that yes, merit matters, and getting the job done and well is, at the end of the day, the primary goal of being an engineer, or any sort of builder or creative in general.

Re:Tech has traditionally resisted unionization...

[squiggleslash]

as tech has always been, at the end of the day, and out of necessity, a meritocracy

I would FTFY as: as tech has always thought of itself as, at the end of the day, and out of necessity, a meritocracy.

We don't do very well at actually promoting by merit, it's usually the loudest, most obnoxious, voices that win the day. We've ended up standardizing on some pretty shitty infrastructure as a result of not being a meritocracy, but being opinionated about stuff we know little or nothing about. And I've seen with my own eyes too many good people burning out, exhausted from fighting fights they shouldn't need to fight.

What is really a union?

[Anonymous Coward]

Groups of employees trying to defend rights it is a necessary part of society. Many times, company owners try to define things as if people working with there were not humans and this must be discouraged.

However.

Check what have been happening in Costa Rica these last months. We are in the middle of one of longest strikes in our recent history. Basically, current scholar year have been finished months before, because unionized workers are against several government tax definitions. And they are waiting for the judicial system to define if their strike it is or not a legal one (Costa Rica has a lot of worker protection laws).

The problem is that, in the middle, thousands of children, their families are suffering, and hundreds and hundreds of derived jobs are in peril.

Sometimes the unions pretend just to show that they are strong and they don't like to negotiate but to impose their way of thinking. This makes many employers to think if they must hire more people as permanent workers, as they know they could be growing a future "enemy" inside their company. Sometimes it is better to be small, or to hire by service and have no more legal links with people.

Unions are needed, but they must have very clear and have well specified goals and action paths. They must help workers (the ones like to receive their help, not by imposition), but they can't define what the company goals are because they are not the company owners. This is like many things in life ... if I have a job, one where my dignity it is preserved, but I don't like what my employer do, then I must find a different job. And, sometimes, some "clever" individuals with particular goals in mind (not the ones for the unionized people but their personal agenda), take the union control and they really become a danger for the companies. That is what owners are afraid of.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[Anonymous Coward]

Society defines what is ethical and what is not.

And being ruled by plutocrats pretty much like they are kings, while not being allowed to organize yourselves in groups that are powerful enough to stand up to those kings, is unethical in our current Western society.

Of course worker unions themselves can become corrupt and turn into similarly unethical behemoths.
However that does not mean that we'd be better off without any unions. It means that everyone has to be vigilant, look for and expose corruption.
Unfortunately most people are too lazy to keep this up and there's plenty of people who see this as an opportunity for exploitation.

That's the first problem - laziness and irresponsibility.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[RedK]

Except you're wrong. Laws are not necessarily ethical or moral. Permissible by law doesn't mean it's "the right thing to do" at all.

Bad analogy time : someone in front of you at the grocery store falls down and hurts their foot. It's quite lawful to just walk by, even stretch your arm over them to grab some box of cereal and leave them there. But is it moral ?

Since when is Silicon Valley patriotic?

[DNS-and-BIND]

pushed around by powerful employees who do not care about patriotism.

So, since when is Silicon Valley patriotic? As in, they care about America and their fellow Americans? Huh? Silicon Valleyites are "citizens of the world". They care far more about distant peoples from backwards cultures than their own neighbors in places like Texas, Idaho, and West Virginia. They regard us with mingled scorn and apprehension. Scratch an intellectual, and you find a would-be aristocrat who loathes the sight, the sound and the smell of common folk. Here is a great essay I have bookmarked that discusses the issue very eloquently and precisely.

Every election cycle like clockwork, conservatives accuse liberals of not being sufficiently pro-America. And every election cycle like clockwork, liberals give extremely unconvincing denials of this.

"It's not that we're, like, against America per se. It's just that...well, did you know Europe has much better health care than we do? And much lower crime rates? I mean, come on, how did they get so awesome? And we're just sitting here, can't even get the gay marriage thing sorted out, seriously, what's wrong with a country that can't...sorry, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, America. They're okay. Cesar Chavez was really neat. So were some other people outside the mainstream who became famous precisely by criticizing majority society. That's sort of like America being great, in that I think the parts of it that point out how bad the rest of it are often make excellent points. Vote for me!"

I was an Obama voter, and I have proud memories of spending my Fourth of Julys as a kid debunking people's heartfelt emotions of patriotism.

Here is a popular piece published on a major media site called America: A Big, Fat, Stupid Nation. Another: America: A Bunch Of Spoiled, Whiny Brats. Americans are ignorant, scientifically illiterate religious fanatics whose patriotism is actually just narcissism. You Will Be Shocked At How Ignorant Americans Are, and we should Blame The Childish, Ignorant American People.

Needless to say, every single one of these articles was written by an American and read almost entirely by Americans. Those Americans very likely enjoyed the articles very much and did not feel the least bit insulted.

Here's another great essay, "Revolt of the Elites" that also addresses this issue.

When confronted with resistance to these initiatives, members of today's elite betray the venomous hatred that lies not far beneath the smiling face of upper-middle-class benevolence. They find it hard to understand why their hygienic conception of life fails to command universal enthusiasm. In the United States, "Middle America" - a term that has both geographical and social implications - has come to symbolize everything that stands in the way of progress: "family values," mindless patriotism, religious fundamentalism, racism, homophobia, retrograde views of women. Middle Americans, as they appear to the makers of educated opinion, are hopelessly dowdy, unfashionable, and provincial.

These privileged young people acquire advanced degrees at the "best [universities] in the world," the superiority of which is proved by their ability to attract foreign students in great numbers. In this cosmopolitan atmosphere, they overcome the provincial folkways that impede creative thought, according to Reic

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[sjames]

Even well done laws set an outer bounds on behavior. That is, they set a bright line in the middle of a wide grey line. They represent the line beyond which the behavior is unquestionably unethical or immoral. They leave plenty of things inside the line that are still unethical most of the time.

Of course, there are also the bought and paid for laws that do no such thing and simply represent something a wealthy person or group doesn't want people to do (for example, compete with them or be able to live without them).

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[lgw]

But being aggressively anti-union and using your control over an economic behemoth to keep salaries down and workers firmly under your thumb... that's not bullying at all, right?

Amazon recently decided to pay all its US warehouse workers a minimum of $15/hour. Senior developers at Amazon make more that JeffB does (all his money is from founder's stock, he declined any additional stock-based compensation last year, and his salary was $176k).

Amazon is not a pleasant place to work, and has lots of problems, but they pay well enough.

Re: Workers opposing unethical projects is bullyin

[RightwingNutjob]

They're all playing victims. From Jeff Bezos, arguably the Rhodes-like colossus of 21st century America at the top down to Mx. I-am-an-ornate-office-building over at Google, to Candace Owens and Donald Trump and Spartacus and Fauxcahontas and Kamala Harris.

It's a cultural sickness and it's wide-spread. We have to think less in terms of victimization and more in terms of positive accomplishment. I've been fucked over lots of times when I was in school, on the job, whatever. Sometimes I fucked myself over with a combination of bad luck and suboptimal decisionmaking. If I dwelt on it, it'd be a death sentence. Don't dwell on the negative. Don't amplify the negative.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[UnknownSoldier]

Did you fail History class when Prohibition was discussed???

Legality != Morality.

* Some things are legal that are moral
* Some things are legal that are immoral
* Some things are illegal that are moral
* Some things are illegal that are immoral

Re:NAFTA was supported by the Heritage Foundation

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, turning to the far left isn't the solution. I think that political Enlightenment is finding the Center. Today, it means realizing how society has shifted so far left that being in the Center means you've got to correct well towards the Right.

Think about what it took to get you called a Nazi 20 years ago vs. today. Then: Shaved head, swastika tattoo, white supremacist. Now: supports Freedom of Speech, supports strong borders, thinks we have a problem with Islamic extremists, and hates Sharia Law.

I don't think my political values have changed much. I've staid pretty much the same since high school, and society has shifted around me. Example: Back then I opposed electroshock therapy on children to "cure" them of being gay, and today I oppose hormone therapy on children to "cure" them of being the wrong gender.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[Guybrush_T]

Exactly that. I mean, you are showing the perfect example of someone who is playing the legal, not moral game.

Sucking money out of "suckers" is legal. Not moral -- you're making these people's life worse.

Usual arguments to make you feel like you're not an a**hole include : "if it's not me it will be someone else", "they deserve it because they're dumb" (everyone is dumb when it comes to some field), "not my role", ...

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[HornWumpus]

I'm selling something.

It's not my job to know if someone thinking of buying it can afford it. Their job, my job is getting paid for it.

Treating people like adults is not being an asshole, rather the opposite. If someone wants to interrogate me like when I was a middle schooler (looking for glycerin, fuming nitric acid and high molar sulphuric) they can fuck right off.

It is _immoral_ and _unethical_ to let a sucker keep his money (legalities be damned). The highest utility for the money (by definition) is for me to get it.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[kackle]

Bad analogy time : someone in front of you at the grocery store falls down and hurts their foot. It's quite lawful to just walk by, even stretch your arm over them to grab some box of cereal and leave them there. But is it moral ?

Is it my ex?

Re:How rich?

[HornWumpus]

Cops are going to cop. If they weren't using broken facial recognition, they'd be using their broken 'gut feel'.

Self correcting problem, wasting their time on random innocent people will keep them from looking at what I'm up to.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[HornWumpus]

WTF?

No, slumlords care if their tenants can pay on an ongoing basis. Evictions are fucking expensive and time consuming. Deadbeats suck.

If I'm selling something for 'cash', I just treat customers as adults who know their own finances.

Re: Workers opposing unethical projects is bullyi

[Anonymous Coward]

Morals are defined by a culture though some norms appear to emerge *nearly* universally: incest = bad, cannibalism = bad, rampant murder = bad, etc. Some of these are necessary to keep a stable society that can grow where people can interact etc.

In the past, in certain tribes, incest was only considered bad because it lead to certain conflicts based on tribe structure. In some societal structures, incest was a good thing to keep control/power. Today, most the world understands there's evolutionary problems with incest that leads to amplifying genetic disorders (which is bad for people and its society).

Most everything is relative. You probably think eating a cat/dog is terrible, many think you eating beef is terrible, some cultures are fine with eating certain insects. Scientifically speaking, none is all that bad in the right quantity if properly cooked, but it's pretty deeply embedded in our cultures and as a result, our psyches. These are not necessary for a culture but may be necessary in our own culture (cats are pets, they've been domesticated, and therefore we shouldn't eat them although we could).

Re:The left have their nut jobs

[malkavian]

From your comment, you're identifying with the left. I don't hang my hat on any political wing, and would disagree with your assertion that the right aren't trying to educate their nut jobs into more sensible views.
The left have a lot of pseudo science and ideology which fulfills pretty much the same drive as religion, and they have their ideologues who peddle their own misinformation. They're both as dangerous as each other when people get too far into it, and get too polarised. And the ideologues are pretty much the same as the Dominionist; they want to spread their ideology far and wide, and enforce it on other countries.

As for the left nutjobs not being comparable to the right, again, I'd disagree. On my wanders (I have a well developed sense of curiosity) I've encountered many a den of very left wing people that scare the crap out of me with how malicious, blinkered, violent, scheming and power hungry they are.
There again, I've also encountered many a den of right wingers that scare the crap out of me with how malicious, blinkered, violent, scheming and power hungry they are.
They are more alike that you seem to see.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[lgw]

Sure, but Amazon is not paying JeffB particularly much, is the point. His total comp isn't an example of a CEO being paid many times what the average worker makes, as falsely implied by TFA.

A bit OT, but the reason long-term capital gains need to be taxed at a lower rate is that we don't index them for inflation. I'm a huge fan of a true flat tax, taxing all earning the same, but that would include indexing capital gains. It will never happen, sadly, but it would be nice.

Re: My Company, My Rules

[c6gunner]

Hah! Good one!

"I think it's unethical to make pesticides, and refuse to do any pesticide related work!"
"We are a pesticide company."
"Well you have to hire me! Zero_Fucktard on the intertubes said so!"

Best of luck with your "career" boy.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[Areyoukiddingme]

Bad analogy time : someone in front of you at the grocery store falls down and hurts their foot. It's quite lawful to just walk by, even stretch your arm over them to grab some box of cereal and leave them there. But is it moral ?

In Vermont, it's illegal to leave them there. They have the only compulsory Good Samaritan law. (Which is then no longer a Good Samaritan, but who cares about words...). In 15 states, you should reach over them for your box of cereal and not touch them if you're not a licensed medical professional. Those 15 states have no Good Samaritan law for unlicensed bystanders. If you try to render aid and make any mistake, you would be liable and could be sued. The rest of the states, you can try to help without fear of being sued. They could sue, but you would win easily and cheaply.

Re:Workers opposing unethical projects is bullying

[jellomizer]

Normally when something is ethical is when the Total Benefit to society is higher then the cost of the implementation/product.

I live near a Protected State Forest. There is also a Major road that twists and turns around it, where car accidents happen monthly. Including within the past decade a Gasoline Truck which flipped over and spilled into the creak, and a Natural Gas Truck which flipped over and caught on fire.

Now it would be ethical to cut down a bunch of trees to straighten out the road, so to save lives, and prevent further pollution of the environment.
However it wouldn't be ethical to cut down these same trees, just to put in someones personal house.

There is value to these trees to Society, however the cost of Tucks flipping over, causing loss of lives and polluting streams and rivers, is much higher then its value to society.

The persons house has some value to society. However its impact is just mostly to the resident, so the Trees in the forest is worth more.

A company if often thinking in terms of short sighted goals. While their total cost to society is often ignored.

Re: Workers opposing unethical projects is bullyi

[Zero__Kelvin]

Cool. You should do that. We call that a "free market"