Ask HN: Do you judge business models on morals and ethics?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3609197

by playeren • 14 years ago

4 14 14 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Could you join a company/project that clashes with your personal code of ethics?

Have you had offers that seemed both viable and lucrative, but was turned down because it seemed morally dubious?

What would be grey areas for you in a moral sense?

Would you sign up to hack python for a site that revolutionizes international arms transactions?

Would you design UX for a next-generation pay-day-loan start-up?

I personally come across many opportunities, where I can see potential for both viable and legal business models, but I trash them because they rely on targeting a vulnerable group of people, or relies on "cheap" psychological tricks to work. But that's just me.

Where do _you_ draw the line?

einhverfr4• 14 years ago

I have a friend who has said that business ethics classes teach how to justify the answers the teacher (and later boss) wants instead of how to ask the real questions. After all, what you get is a series of hypotheticals and asked what the right thing to do is and why. The hypotheticals are written so it's obvious what the teacher wants. So the goal is to justify the "right" answer.

What my friend has argued instead is that the question you are asking, namely how do you evaluate a system? Is it one that encourages the cream to rise, or one where shit floats? To me that's the biggest question.

If you have a business model where the unethical individuals rise to the top (and if they are up at the top that's a pretty good bet) then that's a bad system. If you have one that encourages the ethical folks to rise to the top, then you have a good system.

Now what would I do?

I have worked on projects that others found unethical that I did not, for example, an accounting system for a porn payment gateway. I knew others on the project who did have ethical problems with it. However, the people that ran my customer's business were great--- professional and ethical in terms of running a business.

Similarly I had no problem writing documentation for Microsoft regarding interop of Linux and Windows, even though I was helping Microsoft with Windows marketing and I favor Linux for both ethical and more practical reasons. Whatever helps the customer run a mixed environment is ultimately a good thing.

On the other hand, there are plenty of projects I wouldn't do even if they seem viable. I don't think Monsanto could pay me enough to do anything for them, for example.

As for a next-gen pay-day-loan startup? I would want to have a serious talk with the founders and see if I was missing something. Maybe they have a clear idea on how to make it ethical? Also if I met the founders I might have a better idea if they were being predatory or rather trying to bring a better way for everyone into the industry.

For international arms transactions? Hmmm.... given that countries usually buy arms from other countries, that would mostly be to facilitate organized crime. No thank you.

If it's a gray area, you sit down and try to get a better sense of things. It is possible for a project to be ethical in a sea of poor ethics. If it is unambiguously unethical, I would not touch it. But if the people running it are clearly ethically impaired, then run like hell.

I don't want to be Zinga'd. No thx.... ;-)

playeren5• 14 years ago

Interesting point on evaluating a company based on individuals' code of ethics compared to their upwards career mobility. But the obvious (albeit a bit contrived) question would then be; What if the so-called unethical individuals measurably contributes more revenue and profit, than the ethical individuals? Is a CEO who allows lesser contributing individuals rise to the top of the management hierarchy, acting ethically towards the shareholders?

einhverfr4• 14 years ago

Either the unethical individual will be seen as a liability down the road and thus not promoted, or the unethical individual will rise and gain additional power, and create problems later on.

einhverfr4• 14 years ago

Basically every system rewards some behaviors and punishes others. If your system rewards bringing in money and to hell with ethics, then the shit will float, and eventually the folks at the top will be unethical psychopaths who will tear your company apart.

If you have people who genuinely want to bring money in, work hard at this, and so forth, and they are ethical, and you reward them for both of these, then your business is protected and will not lose sight of the necessity to change the world for the better, which is, likely the heart of the business if it is any good. It's easy to sell products that benefit people, and things that make the world a better place do that.

jnorthrop2• 14 years ago

That's a tricky question and the heart of the problem with it is that human beings are very good at rationalization.

> Would you sign up to hack python for a site that revolutionizes international arms transactions?

Yes, I want to help those innocent rebels overthrow that cruel dictator by giving them a means to protect themselves.

> Would you design UX for a next-generation pay-day-loan start-up?

Yes, what may seem like an extraordinary fee is actually justified by the risk, and many of their customers truly need the service provided. They have no other means.

I face this kind of rationalization in my own job. I'm a director at the International Assoc. of Privacy Professionals. My membership, as you can imagine, is very sensitive to what we do with the personal data we collect. So when the marketing guy asks if he can slice and dice the membership data to do some targeting marketing, I have to assess whether the data he is using was collected with proper permission for that use.

When we collect data it is with the mission of supporting the privacy profession and should only be used for that purpose or to enhance the value the member receives from us. Now, the marketing guy is a sharp fellow and, as such, he will rationalize that it is to the members' benefit that we accurately execute his plan. He will make a sensible case every single time, almost regardless of the situation. It is what humans are really good at.

playeren5• 14 years ago

I totally agree that post-hoc rationalization is rife within any corporate (even social) environment. I even suspect it is an inherent part of our every-day decision process. We make a decision based on emotion/primal drive and then instantly come up with a rationalization, which we then remember as being the reason for our decision.

But how do you argue against an - in your view - immoral/unethical decision which is presented with a far more eloquent and verbose supporting rationalization than you're able to counter? Does it come to who is the most adept at debating?

jnorthrop2• 14 years ago

I'm afraid I'm going to give you a non-answer to what is a very good question, but have you ever watched a political debate? Who wins -- your guy of course! He trounces the other guy. Yet those who like the other guy will feel the opposite and no amount of eloquence is going to move that opinion.

Back to the original question: The bottom line is that everyone has an ethical and moral line that they aren't willing to cross, but that line moves all of the time. When you don't need to cross that line, it is firm. If an opportunity comes up that is on the wrong side of the line but you really need it, your line moves. That is human nature.

damoncali• 14 years ago

Unlike many successful startups* (Zynga, Facebook, etc) I turn down ads for weight-loss scams, mesothelioma, etc all the time. It sucks because there are a lot of them willing to pay. But years from now, I won't remember the cash. I will remember that I contributed to the victimization/extortion of others.

As an aside, I see no problem with payday loans, arms dealing, or the like - there is nothing inherently unethical about the businesses. They both offer ample opportunity to cross ethical lines, but that is a choice, not something that is inherent in the business model. It's like Experian - there is nothing wrong with their business - except that they rely on trickery to get people to sign up. There is a difference between an unethical business and a business that is operated in an unethical manner.

*Note: I don't believe that the choice to engage in scam advertising is what made these companies successful. I think it is a rationalization of poor behavior on their part.

playeren5• 14 years ago

>But years from now, I won't remember the cash. I will remember that I contributed to the victimization/extortion of others.

I'd like to think that it is far more important to invest in a wealth of _experiences_ rather than pure financial wealth, for that same reason. But I guess it's just as valid to say that this is just another post-hoc rationalization of a poor financial choice :)

mmhobbyist• 14 years ago

An interesting new development on this issue is called a “B-Corp.” It stands for benefit corporation, and basically it is a legal designation when a company organizes to have a social mission (things like environmental impact, community involvement, etc.) as part of their fiduciary duty. The result is that a B-Corp can be legally held to its social mission.

Relating back to your question, looking for a B-Corp can be helpful for someone looking at the ethics of a business model because a B-Corp is required to have a third party certify that they are actually pursuing their original social mission.

If you are evaluating companies in SV, California is one of the states that allow B-Corps, so you should check with the company. Other states (including New York, Maryland, and Virginia) also have allowed B-Corps.

Because this idea is so new, it’s hard to say how effective it will be. But hopefully it will be another way to better evaluate a company’s ethics.

astrofinch• 14 years ago

My goal in making money is to give money to charity (to fight existential risk; http://lesswrong.com/lw/8f0/existential_risk/). In trolley problem type scenarios where I could kill one person to save four, I would do it. So by the same logic, I'm willing to do stuff with undesirable consequences to make money if the extra money made more than cancels out the undesirable consequences after I donate it to charity.

Ask HN: Do you judge business models on morals and ethics?

Related Stories