[SecretDreams]

> I dissented while I was there, had millions in equity on the line, and left without it.

Is this a reflection of your morality, or that you already had sufficient funds that you could pass on the extra money to maintain a level of morality you're happy with?

Not everyone has the luxury to do the latter. And it's in those situations that our true morality, as measured against our basic needs, comes out.

[retsibsi]

> And it's in those situations that our true morality, as measured against our basic needs, comes out.

This is far too binary IMO. Yeah, the higher the personal stakes the bigger the test, and it's easy for someone to play the role of a principled person when it doesn't really cost them anything significant. But giving up millions of dollars on principle is something that most people aren't actually willing to do, even if they are already rich.

How someone acts in desperate circumstances reveals a lot about them. But how they act in less desperate circumstances isn't meaningless!

[SecretDreams]

Sure, I'm okay to go with this being a bit of a sliding scale on this.

[lebovic]

Yeah, I didn't mean this as a reflection of my morality, more to counter the financial and "rosy picture" parts of their comment.

[robwwilliams]

Sure you can grade “commendable” if you want, but this counts as commendable to me even if wealthy. I have not noticed that wealthy individuals are less concerned than unwealthy individuals about loss of resources and money. In fact, wealth seems to exacerbate the problem.

[SecretDreams]

I do not know the OP. For some people, a million is life changing. For others, it could be a marginal increment to their bottom line. It is not then a big leap to think some people would do pretty terrible things for a mil, while others would take the higher ground. The OP also alludes to this with their indication of not having dependents.