Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

“My most effective and moral friends are now working for Palantir,” Ganesan says.

This statement is so absurd to me I don’t even know where to begin.

Effective, sure. Moral? Hmmmm. I’m not sure building tech to snipe people from on high is moral?



Stanford is packed with extremely bright, ambitious students. Who can easily optimize their "beliefs and values", for getting ahead.

What's the big downside, from their PoV? Being regarded as "immoral" by a few mostly-impotent-and-irrelevant idealists is probably an upside, due to the cred boost in their new in-group.


I was curious so Chat looked this fun fact up:

As of March 2025, Herbert L. Abrams is the only individual affiliated with Stanford University who has been associated with a Nobel Peace Prize. He served as the founding vice president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which was collectively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for its efforts to prevent nuclear war.


Do you think war is just inherently immoral? What should a country do to not be Ukraine?


It’s an important question. I think of a saying I once heard about picking a SWE job: “back in the day, if you went to finance you were evil and if you went to big tech you were good. Now, you are evil no matter where you go.”

Previously, one could argue that choosing to give your labor to an industry with superior values and alignment of incentives over another would provide the most good as that industry will naturally assert and perpetuate its values and personal interest throughout society and government. However, it’s unclear what industry has superior values and best alignment of incentives with society.


If you believe "si vis pacem, para bellum", then yes, moral plus essential.


Is it possible to be moral and dead?


Quite possible. But is it preferable though?


Morality is not absolute.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: