When I was in biglaw, I represented one PE firm that somehow always wanted to get into the shit - let's buy an oil fracking company (or two!), let's get into gun manufacturers. The companies that weren't "squicky" to me, they would often take apart, merge with competitors, run into the ground and fire half the staff, etc. Add on top of this the fact that most of them were general a-holes. Needless to say, I hated being on most of their deals.
But these guys weren't the norm - most of my clients were PE shops or banks or strategics, and most of the time they wanted to turn a profit from an acquisition in a good way - streamline processes, cut costs, etc.
Yes, I did. I worked for an environmental consulting firm where the vast majority of the work was benign. The firm landed a HUGE project analyzing the environmental impact of building an artificial island (yes, really) in NY harbor to bring natural gas to NY state. The analysis quickly revealed the construction would DEAFEN whales nearby, destroy a fragile aquatic habitat, super high potential for gas spills, etc. It was appalling. I took a huge risk and told my superiors that I wasn't ethically comfortable working on the project, and would not do it. They assigned someone else, thank god.
I was beyond excited when the project fell apart a year later.
I have been on the side of the true believers my entire career, and have completely drank the kool-aid. I don't agree 100% with everything I do, but nearly always, there's a larger principal at stake that I believe is the right one.
I'd never be hired by the dark side, and even if I were, I seriously do not think I could last one day.
Maybe if I had been indoctrinated while I was younger then I could pull it off, but I'm way too old learn how to swallow my politics at work.
Yes, I did. I worked for an environmental consulting firm where the vast majority of the work was benign. The firm landed a HUGE project analyzing the environmental impact of building an artificial island (yes, really) in NY harbor to bring natural gas to NY state.
I am trying to imagine who thought it would be a good idea to run a natural gas pipeline or tankers through the busiest commercial port and most populated area in America.
I mean - both are things that people can choose to use. If people choose to use them wisely, it's generally no harm, no foul. I know not everyone does, but that's not your fault.
I've had this debate with friends of mine who work at both places. I feel it's a bit of a "guns don't kill people; people kill people" position, which makes me uncomfortable, especialy WRT the gambling one. The saving grace for social media is that keeping user data private is probably more valuable at this point.
I'm a wedding photographer, so very few ethical situations...
There have, on occasion, been times when I didn't support the marriage, but obviously still photographed it.
There have been times I've witnessed people using illegal drugs or saying truly terrible things that made me feel icky.
The things I get "pressured" about the most are to trespass to do a photo - even yelled at to do it (I will NOT do railroad tracks, but many people think I should just suck it up and do it when it comes to sneaking on random properties, etc) and to take tasteless photos I don't agree with (ppl exposing themselves to the camera).
I don't think I could work for a certain social networking company based in Menlo Park. Then again, I'm not sure I could bring myself to work for a certain search engine giant based in Mountain View - they have altogether too much knowledge and control at this point, but I can't seem to stop using their services. I would prefer not to work for a gambling site, since generally I view gambling establishments as predatory.
I've never had to deal with any ethical quandaries in my current job, and I actually feel kind of like we're doing something good since I work in software security.
Yes, I did. I worked for an environmental consulting firm where the vast majority of the work was benign. The firm landed a HUGE project analyzing the environmental impact of building an artificial island (yes, really) in NY harbor to bring natural gas to NY state.
I am trying to imagine who thought it would be a good idea to run a natural gas pipeline or tankers through the busiest commercial port and most populated area in America.
Yup that was my exact thinking too. FWIW tankers from overseas would have brought the oil/gas to the island, the island would process and refine it (tons of pollution right next to NYC) then it would go through 3 underwater pipelines to NYC. It was unbelievably ridiculous. I'm sure the proponent just saw the $$$$$ they'd make when the project was completed, and was morally fine with their head in the sand about the actual construction and operational parts of it.
When I submitted my rough draft and the project manager crossed out my "significant adverse impacts" and put "minor to moderate" I said no and pulled myself and the work I'd done out of the project.