> What is the point of this self-imposed honor when the person at the top is more than happy to play you as the fool?

You don’t swap honor like a pair of gloves depending on who you’re dealing with or what they think of you.

You’re either honorable or not.

If one stops being honorable because of minor changes in external circumstances, I don’t believe they were honorable to begin with.

“I’m honest, fair, and worthy of respect only when it’s comfortable or suits me” is not honorable.

When winds start blowing the other way, that’s when one’s true character is tested.

Sincere question: do you believe that Twitter (the business) is honourable in respect of its employees? Is Elon Musk honourable?

Is it honorable to die on your sword for a casino or a big pharma price gouging department? Or an adtech company?

Twitter employees are rightfully questioning their career choices right now, and if their continued help will give Twitter a chance of making the world a better place under current leadership objectives.

Who is dying by their sword?

If they thing they ever made the world a better place, they're delusional. This seems common in silicon valley though.

If you're being paid to do a job, do it. If you no longer want to do it, quit. It's pretty simple.

> When winds start blowing the other way, that’s when one’s true character is tested.

But that depends on who you feel you are working for. If King Charming is replaced by Gorr the Butcher, you may need to decide whether you are truly loyal to the king or the people. Butchering the people that the previous king saved would not strike me as honorable, even if you sworn loyalty to "the crown".

I'm not saying Musk will be bad, I truly have no idea. But if he decided (say) that fake news are good for engagement, it would be indeed wise to question whether loyalty to Twitter Inc. is a good idea. Recognizing when things have changed for the worse is a sign of maturity and not a failure of character.

Blind devotion to your employer or country is not a virtue, but a naive idealism. Honor is just a general heuristic for doing good, it's not the good itself. Doing good is done on a case by case basis, ideals are just a guide. We have to evaluate all our actions with an ethical criticality.

Since when is "not being a dick and doing the job you're paid to do" blnd devotion?

"I'm just doing my job" is a classic deflection of responsibility. If you do not believe your job is ethical or moral or compatible with your beliefs, then to continue to do it is indeed blind devotion. Just because you are paid to do it has nothing to do with what's right.

Values are multiple. You have to consider professional responsibility and weigh it against responsibility to yourself and your family as well, and most people would place those above all others.

This change is not "minor". Twitter employees have just had massive risk and uncertainty added to their short term career. There was some risk and uncertainty prior, because the company would probably have been doing layoffs, but a clearly impulsive, mercurial, uncaring and overstretched person is now in charge of decisions that affect all employees income, health insurance, etc.)

You also have to consider your political values and alignment with the company's goals. I think a lot of people at Twitter also believe in the value of the "public square" which Musk purports to care about. But if you look at Musk's always hyper deferential statements in China, or one of his large investors now being the Saudi government, or his "solution" to the war in Ukraine, it seems that he has a much more favorable outlook on authoritarianism than the previous leadership. Twitter's not about to be a voice for the powerless but a megaphone for the rich and powerful. That has to weigh in on one's thinking about work.

We're talking about work and corporate world.

If I strongly disagree with the new CEO's opinion or company values, I can move on.

None of these things you mention would suddenly make me:

- receive joy from other people's misfortunes

- make others lose money on purpose

- sabotage and attempt to destroy a company

For me, someone who does these things (that OP originally mentioned), is someone very far away from being ethical.

Hence my original point, if you think it's ok to go behind behind people's back because suddenly there's a new CEO at some company, you were never honorable.

What you really have done is just made yourself an excuse to act who you truly are. Someone who'd say everything's ok and fake a smile in front of your colleagues while lurking behind the backs and destroying people’s work.

I very much dislike this loud, ego-centric, self-righteous "I know better" political individualism, where a person thinks it's suddenly OK to "have fun and destroy".

People forgot about dialogue and compromise.

"I very much dislike this loud, ego-centric, self-righteous "I know better" political individualism, where a person thinks it's suddenly OK to "have fun and destroy"."

So why would you work really super-duper hard for Mr. Musk while he waits to finish the code review to fire you??

Because that's your job? The contract is money for work. If you no longer wish to do it due to external circumstances, leave.

Current Twitter employees did not join Twitter with Musk at the helm. They owe him no loyalty. Nothing at all.

At this moment the onus is on Musk to win the loyalty of his new workers.

They are working at Twitter, this isn't Game of Thrones.

Reminds me of Michael Scott in the analysis of The Office in The Gervais Principle [1]

[1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

Let's be honest here: you wouldn't be seeing people saying they should sabotage the code base if a left-leaning CEO bought the company.

Did you think someone was under the impression they were leaving because they like Musk?