alt Hacker News> I would argue it's not a real value if you are not willing to lose something in order to hold on to it. It is admirable to want to do the right thing when you can get away with doing the wrong thing. It is only a true value if you are willing to do the right thing when you cannot get away with doing the right thing.
I don't think it's that simple.
For example, let's say your desire is to minimize harm in Area X. While you're on top and in control of Area X, then you can do that easily enough. Suddenly a competitor comes whose values show they're willing to do lots of harm to Area X. And if they beat you in the capitalistic marketplace and gain more control, they'll be able to do lots of harm. In order to beat them, you may have to do a little bit of harm to Area X, which goes against your values. But in doing so, you retain control, and prevent even greater harm to Area X. Is that not a "real" value?
Would it be a "real" value to staunchly refuse to do a little harm to Area X, even if you know that this will result in greater harm in the long run?
This is why I distrust simple ideologies. The world is not simple.
Replies
Your logic doesn't hold up well to simple escalation logic.
Company A founds itself on doing 0 harm to Area X. Competitor B shows up and starts finding success doing 10 harm to Area X, so Company A makes a "moral" decision: If we do 9 harm to Area X, we are preventing 1 entire harm. Isn't that real value? then Company C shows up and starts finding success doing 100 harm to Area X, so Company A changes it's moral stance to "unless we do 99 harm to Area X ..."
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly kind of logic going on here.
Sometimes being evil will make you win - but only what money can buy.