I don’t see how evicting a tenant for not paying the rent is unethical. It may be heartlless, unChristian, agaknst the will of both Allah and Buddhha, and immoral, but it’s not unethical.
I don’t see how Heatehr’s existence matters a damn. She of course has no obligation to keep the promise–Christopher’s word died with him–but nor is she being compelled to sell. I will state authorially that Heather is not hurtig. She has a 1/3 ownership state in a very profiable company; she may well be still receiving Chrisotpher’s salary. (The company’s swimmming in cash and the only stockholders to answer to are her dead husband’s two best friends, one of whom doesn’t give a flip about his own ssalary; I can easily imagine that they gave her whatever nominal position Christopher held.) She just wants to be uber-rich. That is not a need. In deciding what is ethical behavior, need can override concerns of honor, but desires cannot. Otherwise I can put a hidden camera in Ashleigh Banfield’s hotel shower, because I WANT to see her naked.
ETA: How is Heather harmed by not being allowed to become a billionaire rathe? She already very well off.
Came here to point out this apparently fatal flaw in the hypothetical.
Don’s ethical compunctions or fiscal aspirations only determine whether Remyhr International gains effective control of DND’s assets by majority shareholding. Nothing Don can do can compel Dave to continue to work for a Remyhr-owned DND, and that’s an important bullet point in Remyhr’s plan. It’s not obvious that it’s a show-stopper, but it could easily be. Without Dave, Remyhr can develop to the patents and trade secrets DND developed, but they run the risk of that being the end of the road – no more brilliance in the pipeline.
OTOH, that never kept Steve Jobs from screwing over Steve Wozniak, so who knows?
Your last sentence identifies why I think your first sentence is untrue.
RI’s plans are probably for the products and patents. There’s no way they can make Dave work for them, and the buy-out makes it harder to tempt to do so, because the buyout gives him a billion dollars and thus makes him difficult to tempt financially. I expect their offer is based on the value of the company whether or not Dave is there. If they know of his reticence to work for them, they may be planning to offer him some additional indiviual incentives–a job as head of research & development, or his own lab to rum as he sees fit.
The problem with this promise is that it has no end date.
If I remember my civil law, a contract with no definite end date can generally be terminated by any party.
Now, I know we’re discussing moral obligation, not contractual breach. But the wisdom of requiring a contract to have specific terms or be voidable is that, in other than a few very specific circumstances, we should be loathe to hold someone at age 60 to a contract they made at age 20.
Even marriage, I think, is no longer generally considered to be a binding ethical obligation by most people. And that’s a promise undertaken by the most solemn of vows, made before witnesses, explicitly binding you until death. But the vast majority of commentators today would, I suspect, agree with Pat, who says it’s ethical to divorce spouse Dale because Pat no longer loves Dale, notwithstanding the public vows of forever made by each at their wedding.
I feel as though the promise in this hypo cannot be said to be as strong, or binding, as a promise made at the altar. I also feel that a promise of this type carries with it some unstated context: that they live in this society and their disputes are to be resolved by this society’s rules and processes. Here, the promise was apparently “…never to sell out to the likes of Microsoft or IBM.” But who decides what that means? Is Google an acceptable buyer? They are a good corporate citizen, one might argue, and not at all evil like IBM. The agreement is too vague to be meaningful, and in my view the ethical conundrum is weak. The best agreements are the ones reduced to writing – not because a man’s word is not good, but because good faith disagreements can arise amongst people of good faith, and then recourse to a neutral arbiter judging a clear written agreement is preferable.
Judgement for Don and Heather. It would be noble to refuse to sell, but not ethically required.
I don’t object to discussing legal aspects. i just think it’s kind of pointless, because I can’t imagine any way the promise would be enforceable in a court of law. It would be like the promise my deceased brother made to our mother never tobecome a cop or soldier. The only reasons to keep it are interpersonal.
IS there any way the agreement could have been made legally enforceable? Because I can’t imagine it myself. What possibly consideration could Dave haev offered?
Your mention of marriage brings up an interesting thought. I can only see two reasons for Don to keep this promise: his own honor is more important to him than money, or his relationship with Dave is more important to him than additional money. In that sense, breaking the promise is like committing infidelity – not in being a moral sin, but in that it’ll blow up the relationship quite possibly beyond repair.
If I had the chance to fuck Asheleigh Banfield I wouldn’t take it, despite her great MILFIness, because it would blow up my marriage if my wife found out, and even if she didn’t, I would hate myself for betraying my wife, and the fact that she didn’t know about it would just be an additional betrayal. Hard to imagine any friendship reaching that level.
Oh, as as for judgment for Heather: Unlike Don, she is not doing anything wrong in trying to sell the company. Christopher’s honor died with him, and we don’t know if he’d have been willing to honor the promise under these cirucmstances and can never find out. (%houth Heather probably has behaved badly in that what she’s set in motion will probably be the end of Don and Dave’s friendship, but even that is not unethical; she’s not their mommy.)
Ethically, Don has to stick by his promise. I wouldn’t condemn Don for being unethical if he decides to break his promise though, Dave is being kind of dickish if Don and Christopher contributed significantly to the potential value of the company and Dave won’t do anything at all to maximize that value. I gotta admit I’d be sorely tempted in his position. In the past I turned down opportunities to work for military contractors because of my own principles, but no one was offering me a billion bucks.
Ted Dibiase, a great American and former pro wrestler, said “Everybody has a price…”. He’s right, and multi-billions is pretty close to mine. Don will likely lose Dave’s friendship over it, and it is a total heel turn…but it is multi-billions. That’s “none of my extended family will ever have to work” money. That’s “Honey, call Carnival. Tell them we want that biggest ship they run. Yes, reserve the whole ship. Pretty much everyone we know and all their friends are going on a cruise. We’ll let them know where, they should just gas up the boat and stock up on steaks and other necessities” money. That’s “move to Colorado and use Benjamins as rolling paper” money. It’s also “will buy a helluva lot of cream for teh butthurt” money. Fuck Dave. He’ll get over it, or he won’t. Meanwhile, Don can’t hear him over the people snorting blow off hooker’s asses on the Lido Deck.
I’m curious what Dave’s inventions are that are only making the owners of the company $250k/year but which another company is willing to buy out for billions. It sounds like Dave is somehow restricting who buys his products - if the company is worth billions, it would be producing a hell of a lot more than $750k/year in profit. If Dave is somehow artificially restricting who can buy the company’s wares, I’d say that makes the original agreement null and void, since Don and Chris expected to become wealthy off Dave’s inventions.
Personally, I think breaking the promise is the least of the ethical considerations. No one expects a pinky-swear made while they were (basically) kids to hold up forever.
The real promise is the fact that Dave was always the core of the company, and Don/Chris worked with him for many years under this arrangement, with apparent agreement from everyone involved. Dave’s personal involvement was contingent on everyone being on the same page.
I put some of the ethical responsibility on Chris’s shoulders for not adding some legal bindings to the transfer of his shares to his wife. He knew that a transfer would happen eventually (to his wife or kids or whomever) and upholding his responsibility to his friends means being careful that his share isn’t misused. He failed in that regard.
Don of course should stand by Dave–again, not because of some silly promise, but because of their ongoing partnership. Cheating on your wife after 20 days proves that you’re a jerk. But it’s even worse after 20 years, and it really doesn’t matter a whit if you never said your vows in the first place.
That said, Dave should try to figure out a way to make Don rich, via IPO or otherwise. That was also part of the original arrangement, and part of why the others stood by Dave all this time. Don’s dreams don’t seem too out of the ordinary and he should be happy with millions instead of billions. It should be possible for Don to cash out with a decent sum if he desires.
They’re funneling most of their profits back into research, obviously. And since Dave refuses to work for the military, he is building stuff that could be used BY the military in some way. Recall the “warmongers” remark of RI. So yes, DCD has been passing up sales opportunities. So Dave is obviously working on Shipstones.
They weren’t kids The OP says that Dave approached Don & Christopher years after they graduated from college, so they were at least 24. And possibly older, since tehy had enough money to be worth approaching as investors.
I don’t think that’s fair, because I don’t think Heather has done anything unehtical. She’s not bound by Chris’s promise If things had been different – if Christopher had owned 51% of DCD, which had now passed to Heather – she would have perfectly ethically justified in selling it out from under them. She made no promise.
Won’t work. Dave is already living below his means because he doesn’t care about the money (he’s giving away most of his salary a and clearly not exploting the full value of his inventions).
Also, arranging an IPO won’t work because a huge value of DCD has to be Dave’s great big brain. If Dave doesn’t want to work for a public company (which will probably be owned by hedge funds, AT&t, and the like), that will probably become public knowledge during the IPO process. The value of DCD’s products and patents won’t change, but the value of the company will shrink.
So what’s your bright line?
Let’s recap. If you’re in Dave’s place, you’re making $250K a year in salary. Don’s your best living friend. He brought you into the company because he wanted to work with friends rather than strangers. He, not you, is the driving force behind the company’s innovations.
If the proffer is low enough that your share after taxes is only $100 million, do you still break your word? How about for $50 million?
That wasn’t how I learned it; consideration only has to be “material.” Lots of contracts have been signed over very small dollar amounts. (Lots of contracts have been signed over no dollar amounts at all, but over swaps of other considerations. You take care of my doggie while I’m on vacation, and I’ll fix your porch roof when I get back.)
Fuck that shit. I’d die for my wife. I’m not hurting her for any reason short of"It’s the only way to protect my kids" or “Memphis willbe destroyed otherwise.”
That’s why I said “basically”. 24 is “basically” kids in comparison to them being nearly 40. Although you didn’t specify, I’m assuming that Don and Chris were either unmarried or newlyweds a few years after graduation. Now, they have far more responsibilities. I’m not even married but I can say I’m a pretty different person than I was at 24 (I’m in my late 30’s myself).
I absolutely agree, which is why I didn’t say anything about Heather. It was Chris’s ethical responsibility. Yes, the nature of his death was tragic. But leaving his shares in an “unprotected” state was dangerous. The shares should have been put in a legal arrangement (a trust, perhaps) that required the spirit of the agreement to be upheld even if the shares were transferred.
Ethically, it’s like giving a gun to a toddler. Well, sorta :).
Just as Don and Chris have/had a responsibility to not sell out to a giant multinational, Dave has a responsibility to make Don and Chris at least kinda rich. You specified in the OP that it’s part of why they stuck with Dave all these years, and even if there was never a pinky-swear, I’m sure they all knew each other’s motivations. Dave may not care for himself, but he should make some effort–while staying within his own guidelines, of course–to accomplish that.
That’s fine. Tesla stock would crash and burn if Elon left or kicked the bucket. That value gets built into the stock (though investors have to be confident they’ll stay).
No reason they have to be controlled by multinationals. They can sell off only 49% of the company. Or issue “class B” shares that have reduced voting rights (so they retain full control over the company even if they have <50% financial interest). There are ways around this problem.
Of course these multinationals may invest in the company and make money off of them, but this would be an unreasonable line for Dave to take. Having investors doesn’t necessarily mean giving up control over your company.
On the other hand, there’s something manipulative about denying your friends millions of dollars because of *your *personal preferences. All the more so since Don has a family to support and Dave doesn’t.
In this scenario I think Dave is wrong and self-centered.
And this is similar to the movie. You say that because you don’t have $1 billion dollars in cash in several briefcases in front of you and it’s not a realistic scenario.
Maybe her definition of “hurting her” includes NOT taking $1 billion dollars for a few minutes with another women?
Well, I’m sure all the kids that die due to malnutrition that you could have saved with your billion dollars will appreciate the fact that you “kept your promise” :rolleyes:
I know. I acknowledged upthread that the thread is mistitled. I make these things up as I go along.
But I also suspect that Don thinks of himself as middle-class. He can buy any car he wants, but not a plane. His is the one of the maller boats in the marina. Only one house. And he has to know that DCD is not bringing in as much money as it could because of Dave’s decisions.
Consider this, then. DCD is worth at least $3 billion to Remyhr International if Dave comes along. Let’s say it’s worth a fifth of that if Dave jumps ship (because they still have the patents and products, but not Dave’s genius, and since he doesn’t care about the oney himself, they’ll have a hard tie forcing him not to compete). So let’s say Dave says, “Well, as I think on it, Don, I love you, and those patents will eventually expire, so I release youfrom your promise. Go ahead & sell, but I’'m not goingn along.”
Dave will be reducing Don’s windfall from $1 billion to $200 million. He’s denying his friend $800 million. Is that wrong of him?
Dave HAS made Don kind of rich. Don gets $250K a year IN SALARY. He’s not gonna be buying any pro baseball teams, but he’s still a one percenter.
