Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
csallen | on: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
> 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.

zoogeny | parent | next
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.

SauntSolaire | root | parent
I mean, your proposed logic seems to be quite consistent from a basic game theory perspective. Defecting in a prisoners dilemma and races to the bottom are both well observed phenomena.
zoogeny | root | parent
We have 10,000+ years of human civilization at this point. There must be some other active ethical maxim operating other than "choose the lesser of two evils" to explain why there is so much cooperation amongst humans. Evidence is not on the side of the preeminence of races to the bottom.

You should investigate the repeated prisoners dilemma.

SauntSolaire | root | parent
> You should investigate the repeated prisoners dilemma.

Well aware. Obviously, the entirety of human civilization is a bit more complicated than a prisoners dilemma, iterated or not. Yet prisoners dilemma's and races to the bottom still exist, and it makes no sense to argue against them in the abstract.

zoogeny | root | parent
I think we are very disconnected on the topic of conversation here. Somehow you've confabulated my point with an attack on the prisoners dilemma or races to the bottom?

The person I was responding to made the point that if you want to minimize evil in the world, sometimes you have to add evil to a lesser degree. As in my example, if I do 9 points of evil but prevent 10 points of evil then according to OP I've added value to the world in the form of the 1 point of evil I have reduced.

I responded that this can lead to an escalation trap. This assumes that we would all prefer less evil in the world, right? So how do we get out of the escalation trap? Repeated application of the maxim "always do a bit less evil than the worst possible competitor" will not lead to a minimization of evil overall, only a creeping increase in the total amount of evil in the world.

How are you equating this to me arguing against the existence of races to the bottom?

z3t4 | parent
Sometimes being evil will make you win - but only what money can buy.