(no title)
mmxiii | 10 years ago
You are so tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad, that you are missing how the business is an entirely different entity. There are employees, customers, and investors all potentially affected by this outcome. In the case of a breakup, there is potentially a greater moral obligation to create the best result for the other parties, than just fixate on the betrayal of the victim.
Not to mention your idea of this requiring moral punishment is not something that would draw consensus on HN, or in general. That is your fantasy, not reality.
crimsonalucard|10 years ago
Number 5/30 is around the top 15%. Consensus is not required for effective results. I never claimed such a thing, so why is this your point? Consensus is required for morality. Because morality is subjective it is impossible to conclude whether something is truly moral or immoral. Two people with different morals will have incongruent notions on good and evil. Thus for a concrete answer we turn to majority consensus. This is the entire reason why I brought it up. In short, consensus verifies that my advice is effectively moral.
>You are so tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad, that you are missing how the business is an entirely different entity. There are employees, customers, and investors all potentially affected by this outcome. In the case of a breakup, there is potentially a greater moral obligation to create the best result for the other parties, than just fixate on the betrayal of the victim.
I am tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad. It usually is, and this case does not deviate from the usual scenario. The business IS a different entity with separate moral obligations. These obligations are may intersect and be in conflict but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the betrayal not the complexities of life. These things are a given and it will be the OPs choice whether he wants to be moral to his friends, business partners or both. I apologize for not having the time to write a 200 page essay about the details on how he should handle every single separate moral obligation that could potentially be compromised by such a large decision.
>Not to mention your idea of this requiring moral punishment is not something that would draw consensus on HN, or in general. That is your fantasy, not reality.
When did I say he requires moral punishment. I'm suggesting a moral action. The consensus and I repeat again is not on some stupid requirement. People voted me up because they agree with the morality of the suggestion. If he takes my suggestion, the action will be moral in the eyes of majority consensus. I have no scientific evidence backing that claim up, but my intuition aka common sense tells me it is true.
mmxiii|10 years ago
The question is really what constitutes good advice. I suppose it turns out good advice also varies to what is being sought, and why. Maybe someone wants a better answer, maybe reassurance, maybe validation. With more data, we can provide a more objective assessment of the consequences of different actions. Of course, unfortunately, we are not provided any of that here. You can certainly offer your subjective preference to take the moral/consensus action as advice. This advice, as we discussed, is not necessarily effective, and perhaps already known. If what is being sought is objective advice, in that dimension, with only minimal information, the best thing to offer is relevant experience.