Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mission Protocol

missionprotocol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: Mission Protocol

#41

Post by woodruffw »

skissane wrote: post #33
woodruffw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To say good isn't subjective is to say there is some part of the universe at some fundamental level that defines good. Not especially: there is an abundance of immanent ethical theories that define the Good (or Right) in terms of basic things in our grasp: the number of people who go hungry, the number of people who die of preventable diseases, &c. These don't require some spooky or transcendental universal fundame…

> there is an abundance of immanent ethical theories that define the Good (or Right) in terms of basic things in our grasp The problem with all those theories, is they can be attacked as simply efforts to define "good" – with the ensuing problem that other people will define "good" in contrary ways, and if "good" is just a definition, then how can a mere definition be, in an objective sense, superior to a competing p…

Fair enough! I wasn't expecting to have Moore's naturalistic fallacy pulled on me :-)

Neither intersubjective nor Kantian ethics have this problem: intersubjective ethics doesn't admit of an objective Good, and Kantian ethics don't admit of an is-ought distinction (all "ought"s are in fact "is"es that are bound in actions).

Re: Mission Protocol

#42

Post by Pils »

iongoatb wrote: post #39
aazaa wrote: post #32

> Mission focus is the operational principle that your project’s social responsibility is the effective and focused execution of its mission. ... This brings to mind what Snowden revealed to the world. Few inside the CIA new about domestic warrantless surveillance. Had Snowden followed the "Mission Protocol," we might still not be aware of the laws being broken routinely in the name of security. Following the Mission…

This protocol is meant for non-government agencies, i.e. tech companies. Don't obfuscate the intended purpose of this protocol. There are well-defined, existing whistleblower protocols in government for situations that Snowden encountered.

Did you mean to also exclude tech companies that work with the government (i.e. Palantir, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.)?

> Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (informally Booz Allen) is the parent of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an American management and information technology consulting firm, headquartered in McLean, Virginia, in Greater Washington, D.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton

Re: Mission Protocol

#43

Post by donatj »

woodruffw wrote: post #22
donatj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To say good isn't subjective is to say there is some part of the universe at some fundamental level that defines good. That's the claim that requires evidence. Show me the "good particle" and then we'll talk. Until then I can only rationally assume something doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

> To say good isn't subjective is to say there is some part of the universe at some fundamental level that defines good. Not especially: there is an abundance of immanent ethical theories that define the Good (or Right) in terms of basic things in our grasp: the number of people who go hungry, the number of people who die of preventable diseases, &c. These don't require some spooky or transcendental universal fundame…

All those still depend on the idea that humans and life itself are more than just a long running, self-replicating electrochemical reaction which again pushes the burden of proof on to you.

Re: Mission Protocol

#44

Post by crmrc114 »

seibelj wrote: post #26
colordrops wrote: post #19

How about just being honest and saying that the main purpose of the company is to make a profit and let's cut the shit with the superficial social and political stances. It would be great if companies could work towards something greater but the incentives are not aligned with how the system is currently built.

There is something gross to many people when you just openly say you want to make money and started / work at company to do so. Not to me however - my philosophy sees nothing wrong with working hard and making money. The mission is important to remind yourself out of all the ways to make money you are doing this one. But convincing free people to voluntarily give you money is proof that you are providing true value t…

Who is John Galt?

Honestly though, I go somewhere where I can contribute and my efforts and time in exchange for money. Work is work, it's not who I am. That being said I get the point of the Bill Ayres crowd with this zinger "How will you live your life so that it doesn't make a mockery of your values?"

Like, yeah- If I was a die hard Catholic I may have issues working writing software to make abortions easier. On the flipside if I were an Environmentalist I am sure I would have issues working at BP drilling in Alaska or something.

Dont work for BP and then complain that they are expanding drilling operations. Dont work at Planned Parenthood and then complain about free birth control. Opinions are like bootyholes, we all got em'. Better question is can you sit across from someone you disagree with and accomplish a common goal. That is professionalism. Rise above the differences you may learn that everyone's viewpoint has some shimmer of value- and you are not always right.

Re: Mission Protocol

#45

Post by remarkEon »

woodruffw wrote: post #31
renewiltord wrote: post #24

I suspect this is an anti-fragile position, i.e. exposed to varying stressors on a company's purpose, companies that follow this principle will simply sharpen their purpose and objectives and get better at it. It'll be interesting to see if this is a competitive advantage. Personally, I think it is. I would happily accept a PR from a guy who wants to kill me. He can't kill me or hurt me in a PR. Personally, I'd also…

> I suspect this is an anti-fragile position, i.e. exposed to varying stressors on a company's purpose, companies that follow this principle will simply sharpen their purpose and objectives and get better at it. We might be inclined to ask ourselves what it would have looked like for lunch counters in 1958 to have done the same, and why that doesn't fly now.

I suspect these lunch counters would've had some very pointed questions about why the law was artificially constraining their potential customer base.

Re: Mission Protocol

#46

Post by CryptoPunk »

This is 100% correct. It's disappointing that this is needed, but in an age where many people are out of touch with principles of social collaboration, sometimes the obvious needs to be spelled out.

Re: Mission Protocol

#47

Post by CryptoPunk »

aazaa wrote: post #32

> Mission focus is the operational principle that your project’s social responsibility is the effective and focused execution of its mission. ... This brings to mind what Snowden revealed to the world. Few inside the CIA new about domestic warrantless surveillance. Had Snowden followed the "Mission Protocol," we might still not be aware of the laws being broken routinely in the name of security. Following the Mission…

Snowden found that these agencies were violating their mission, which is defined by the Constitution.

Re: Mission Protocol

#48

Post by woodruffw »

donatj wrote: post #43
woodruffw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To say good isn't subjective is to say there is some part of the universe at some fundamental level that defines good. Not especially: there is an abundance of immanent ethical theories that define the Good (or Right) in terms of basic things in our grasp: the number of people who go hungry, the number of people who die of preventable diseases, &c. These don't require some spooky or transcendental universal fundame…

All those still depend on the idea that humans and life itself are more than just a long running, self-replicating electrochemical reaction which again pushes the burden of proof on to you.

Going back to the original response: you don't actually need to be a moral realist to observe (as in, witness with the globs of goo in your eyesockets) intersubjective ethics.

You don't have to agree with them, but it's a real phenomenon. It's up to you to decide how you handle it.

Re: Mission Protocol

#49

Post by CryptoPunk »

woodruffw wrote: post #31
renewiltord wrote: post #24

I suspect this is an anti-fragile position, i.e. exposed to varying stressors on a company's purpose, companies that follow this principle will simply sharpen their purpose and objectives and get better at it. It'll be interesting to see if this is a competitive advantage. Personally, I think it is. I would happily accept a PR from a guy who wants to kill me. He can't kill me or hurt me in a PR. Personally, I'd also…

> I suspect this is an anti-fragile position, i.e. exposed to varying stressors on a company's purpose, companies that follow this principle will simply sharpen their purpose and objectives and get better at it. We might be inclined to ask ourselves what it would have looked like for lunch counters in 1958 to have done the same, and why that doesn't fly now.

Why would you work for a lunch counter with a racist mission? Boycotting is the correct way to combat it. If there's a law forcing lunch counters to segregate, then the problem is in the government, and the correct way to counter that is political activism.

Re: Mission Protocol

#50

Post by minism »

colordrops wrote: post #19

How about just being honest and saying that the main purpose of the company is to make a profit and let's cut the shit with the superficial social and political stances. It would be great if companies could work towards something greater but the incentives are not aligned with how the system is currently built.

Really glad you said this. At this point this is my natural gut reaction to this type of discourse.
Post reply on HN