Don't Be Evil (Google)

This is a topic that has come up a ton on HN, in submitted articles[1] and practically once a day in comments[2]

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Never use "not a cat" language is the lesson here. "That is not a cat." is no way to describe a dog. "Do not be evil" says and promises nothing. "Do good." would have been somewhat better.

The adoption of this motto by a company employing thousands of people provides a great example of why we need more engineers versed in the humanities.

What is evil? If it's violations of the law, then why not "Don't break the law"? (That certainly gives off stronger "already answered my t-shirt" vibes).

Does 'Don't be Evil' mean not violating any principles of Sartrean humanism? Those are all perfectly clear, right? Does it mean keeping the Judeo-Christian decalogue? The Confucian analects? Good thing there are no ongoing debates problematizing those! Or maybe it requires performing Utilitarian harm reduction calculations before all decisions? That's easily calculable, though, isn't it? Or, perhaps it involves abstaining from all meat, alcohol, and cigarettes? Some Jains wear special shoes to avoid accidentally crushing insects while treading, while Mormon ethics require the donning of special undergarments. Will corporate provide either of those?

Aside from the fact that the existence or non-existence of metaphysical evil is still debated both in secular-rational and theological contexts, it's unavoidable that many ethical ideologies fundamentally contradict one another. One can either choose one and rule out all others, hoping that the chosen model proves internally consistent and unambiguous, or one can accept that, as Philip K. Dick once said, "We are all doomed to commit acts of cruelty or violence or evil; that is our destiny, due to ancient factors. Our karma." Neither choice sounds ideal!

Friedrich Nietzsche's theory on the inevitable "transvaluation of all values" lends some weight to the impossibility of retaining this maxim in Google's corporate code of conduct forever. Reading into Google's abandonment of 'Don't Be Evil' this uncharitable idea that leadership has decided "evil" (whatever that is) is ok now, actually, leaves one with the unsatisfactory feeling of missing some perspective.

Instead, I think, the decision shows us that even the most simply worded of slogans, with the best of intentions, are inadequate as frameworks to think deeply about the often impossible contradictions of our beliefs and commitments. Ethical action requires deep thought. It's not a consensus, and it's not majority rule either (probably!). Not doing evil is complicated, and hard. It's not something that every preschooler inherently understands at playtime. And even if we follow through on the most informed decisions, supported by the all-true suppositions and ironclad logic, we may still find ourselves doubting that course of action years down the line as new outcomes are disclosed.