|
|
|
|
|
|
by lebanon_tn
3394 days ago
|
|
|
Your viewpoint assumes a lot about the original commenter's life situation. It would be incredibly foolish to leave a stable, well paying full-time job if one were supporting a family living in one of highest cost of living cities in the U.S.
Especially if someone in their family has a chronic medical condition. I understand it can be done as you mention in your examples, but it's not so easy -- especially with uncertainty surrounding healthcare in the U.S. in general. |
|
|
The thing is, everyone in the world has ties to other people and responsibilities, and they have to decide how to weight these different factors. It seems very clear that Uber is systematically mistreating and exploiting the people in its path. Software engineers as a group are in the best position to convince the company to change course, or to punish it if it does not change course. They have far, far more leverage per person than individual drivers or Uber customers, and they also are risking relatively little; they can reliably expect to find another job that pays six figures in a manner of months, right? I believe that people with that level of economic bargaining power and security are morally obligated to use that power for the benefit of others.
If the original poster had said "I don't want to risk leaving my family hungry," that's one thing. Instead they said they couldn't be expected to make any sacrifice unless someone else went to the trouble of getting them a better offer. The idea that the poster has no moral obligation to take action for the good of others unless it will also benefit them is absurd and repugnant to me. If the poster wants to admit they are not bothered by the allegations against Uber or don't care very much, then I will appreciate the honesty, but software engineers (in general) are not in a good position to blame morally suspect positions on necessity or survival.