I work for a corporation described by most as “evil”. While we can debate the ethics of the matter – strict interdepartmental discipline doesn’t necessarily equal evil, even if a little bit of fire is involved – the fact is that we’re going places. Or would, if the CEO wasn’t constantly spending money on pet projects. Rather than spending a moderate amount on kidnapping someone and holding them hostage, or in establishing a water monopoly, he insists on constructing orbiting lasers and convoluted plots to discredit media rivals by faking stock market crashes (which was super dramatic and theatrical but immediately and easily invalidated).
I’m going to do it regardless, but I’m interested on the net morality when I murder and replace him.
Efficient in Catania
Given that you’re going to do it anyway, I’m curious to what use you would turn this knowledge. If the net morality was, say, an unmitigated good, would you turn away or just murder several bags full of infant animals in order to right stakes? Likewise, if it was a negative, would you set a line item into the budget for charity? I think what you want to hear is that your imposition of order will be a net good, and then you can feel vaguely superior to your predecessor for having lowered his carbon footprint by no longer having frivolous private jet chases.
More importantly though, morality isn’t really a budgetary line item. Negatives and positives don’t cancel out. It’s more of a baggage situation; all of it gets run through the bonfire of judgement and you have to sift through the ash on the other side to pull out the valuables. Which is a terrible metaphor on a number of levels, but I cannot be bothered to come up with a better one.
Short version: If you ice your employer but give everyone dental, you’ll probably be the main one to second guess the decision. When you start and finish the guessing is really a personal issue.