Why? If they have alternate employment options, they are actively choosing to support their company's work. The "someone else will do it" excuse doesn't mean you throw your hands up in the air and give up on ever caring about ethics, it means you acknowledge that it won't change the world on its own and still try.

I don't think you go attacking individuals publicly but yes, people should absolutely be forced to have conversations about the morality of their job, especially those well off enough to have freedom of choice in where they work. It's not an easy conversation, but we all need to be encouraging this more.

Ah, "morality" about one's job. The luxury of hacker news commenters. Very, very, very few people have that luxury. Everyone else has mouths to feed and a roof to replace.

Everyone is aware of the risks of smoking. People still want to do it. So people can, and should, produce cigarettes. If you don't like it, don't buy them.

But to suggest minimum wage earners working at Marlboro should quit because of some vague "morality" is insane and extremely elitist.

I specifically included, very deliberately, phrasing specifying that this applies only to those that have alternatives. The reality is that many of those working at Facebook have such a luxury. I absolutely do not blame people that are working to survive.

> But to suggest minimum wage earners working at Marlboro should quit because of some vague "morality" is insane and extremely elitist.

Not once did I say this anywhere. There are still high ups at Marbolo that did have the ability though, and plenty of people between minimum wage survival and top level execs. It's a spectrum of both power and responsibility.

Many work at FB have that luxury? How can you prove that? You can't. That's a judgement call on your part, and a bad one at that. You have absolutely no insight into the work/life issues those workers need to consider.

Someone's salary is not a measure to use when attacking them for not resigning.

There is no valid argument to support the claim that Marlboro executives should resign because cigarettes are unhealthy. People resigning does exactly nothing to the market demand for cigarettes.

> Many work at FB have that luxury? How can you prove that? You can't. > Someone's salary is not a measure to use when attacking them for not resigning.

You don't resign out of the blue, you start looking and interviewing at other places. People with the talent or resume to get hired at Facebook currently do have that ability and should be valued on the current job market.

> That's a judgement call on your part, and a bad one at that. You have absolutely no insight into the work/life issues those workers need to consider.

Okay, so you're just boiling this down to "my judgement is better than yours without evidence" then? If no person can have any insight into anyone ever, how would we ever act on any information or situation? Assumptions and judgements must not be made blindly but they do need to be made in an informed manner. Why you discount my perspective on them without reason is another matter.

> There is no valid argument to support the claim that Marlboro executives should resign because cigarettes are unhealthy. People resigning does exactly nothing to the market demand for cigarettes.

They literally created the market demand through their suppression of information. The argument is not at all "cigarettes are unhealthy", it's that they should not be marketed and supported in the motives of profit above morality.

Please stop rephrasing my arguments to fit your assumptions. I'd love to have a real discussion here instead of talking past each other.

Is perpetuating an international public health crisis for short term financial gain any less myopic or childish?

People like smoking. People like drinking. Humans will be humans.

Some people like shooting themselves with guns sometimes. It doesn't mean I should manufacture guns and advertise their effectiveness for that task, or worse, use psychological tricks to sell guns to these people while hiding my motivations.

Dear lord, they are cigarettes. Everyone understands the risks.

Guns are legal, so people will manufacture them and people will buy them. What people "should" do is not murder.

First, let us not forget it took an entire public health initiative and excessive public regulation for "everyone" to understand the risks. This is not always the case generally and was certainly not when Marbolo employees, some high up with power and freedom of work, were working to lobby against that information regarding their risks coming to light.

As far as guns, again you did not read my full example regarding the marketing. The conditions are to show that making something and selling something happens in a context, not a vacuum. Not all cases are moral or should be encouraged.