logoalt Hacker News

pear01today at 12:49 AM3 repliesview on HN

To be candid, this is a common refrain that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

> I'm not especially interested in passing moral judgment on others

Earlier:

> I chose to spend most of my career at a company that did stuff I found morally acceptable (inspiring, even). I made probably half what I could have made at places that were more dodgy.

Put more succinctly:

"I work somewhere that is morally acceptable. I could have made double or more if I had worked at a 'more dodgy', less morally acceptable place. Like where you work. No judgement though."

Honestly, I would have more respect for your sentiments if you would just stick to the logical conclusion of your position. Perhaps the scorn you meet is simply a reaction to this inability to simply follow the logical course of your own viewpoint. It has nothing to do with the mere existence of your morals it has to do with the fact that they are incompatible.

You want to have it both ways - you want to make a moral judgement and yet not make a moral judgement. Or you want to bound your moral judgement simply to yourself as if it is at all logical to not extrapolate it to others. If others can work for wherever they please, then what do you even mean by "morally acceptable" or "dodgy"? Simply places you prefer? That's not what morally acceptable means.

For someone who speaks of moral judgements, you don't seem to grasp their implications. I would suggest reflecting on this if you actually care about the reactions you elicit in others. This brief back and forth with you is certainly suggestive of a picture far different from the one you originally painted.


Replies

palatatoday at 5:20 AM

Genuinely interested: if you ask someone where they work, and they answer that they work in [place some TooBigTech here], do you consider that they judge you because you are not working for a TooBigTech? "I work for a TooBigTech so I'm probably better and richer than you. No judgement though"?

To me it's like with vegetarians. If someone tells you out of the blue "I am a vegetarian because I find it completely irresponsible to not be vegetarian. No judgement though", it's not the same as someone saying "I would like to inform you that I am a vegetarian, given that we are going to eat something and it is relevant for you to know it right now". Yet that latter situation will regularly offend non-vegetarians just the same.

show 1 reply
Folcontoday at 4:55 AM

I personally think this is an uncharitable reading, you can have a different internal benchmark or standard you want for yourself vs others

From a purely consistency perspective I don't think you're incorrect, but humans aren't purely consistent

We are able to accept that our personal preferences aren't the same as others and still like, respect or love them anyway

I read the GP as stating:

- he wanted to work for a place that made him happy

- he voiced that pleasure to others, "I'm glad I work at a place I find inspiring"

- they took that as an implicit attack on them

There are at least two parties to a conversation, each of them gets their own opportunity to interpret what occurs

It sounds like in this instance they interpreted his position much more negatively than he intended

Now to answer why is in my opinion is much more complicated and I honestly wouldn't hazard a guess without either being there or knowing both parties very well

show 1 reply
ChrisMarshallNYtoday at 1:33 AM

Have a great day!