Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's an interesting comparison. I think you could extend the analogy as well.

There are strategies a company, or country, should abandon when survival is in jeopardy, but there are also values which are core to your identity. Abandoning those values when you come under pressure has a pragmatic effect on perceptions and ethical ramifications.

I also agree with you that being sure of what exactly your core values are is very important.

However, our example appears to be a company in peacetime. Our example experiment also appears to be very low cost. It isn't useful data to judge if non-survival core values for a company are worth defending in wartime.

For a country, defending non-survival core values during wartime is clearly worthwhile. This is where the analogy breaks down. For a company, there is clearly less moral obligation and practical costs to abandoning these values.

We can't say without doubt that defending values in a wartime company is the wrong priority. A combination of personal ethics and potential damage make that a case by case decision.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: