"Seriously, ask yourself what you would want the VC you entrust with your money to do."
Is that all you need to ask in considering how ethical an action is?
The whole point of ethics is to reason in the context of tensions. Tensions between what you want and what others want. Companies have responsibilities to more than their investors. Their employees, their communities, their customers, their environment. Focusing exclusively on one side of the tension has nothing to do with ethics.
Focusing disproportionately on investors is also ethically convenient, because their interests are often aligned with yours.
"an arm's length negotiation with CEOs of angel invested startups seeking to be the CEOs of the worlds largest, most innovative companies is well within that line."
It may seem obvious to you, but it's clearly not obvious to grandparent since that is what the argument is about.
"Fiduciary responsibility is the core of business ethics that should never be violated. Within fiduciary responsibility you still can't do anything illegal."
I think this position doesn't require the word 'ethics'. You can get by with just 'laws'.
This isn't a rhetorical device. I think lots of people think this, and honestly am ok with it. At the least it's internally consistent. It just fails for me because it doesn't permit asking, "what should the laws be?"
We are discussing CEOs of startups and their negotiation with professional investors. In that scenerio, I cannot imagine a reason why a VC should give up something in the negotiation because he feels like the startup doesn't know what they are worth. Both sides have lawyers and advisors and the CEO is an adult who can analyze his future as well as anyone else.
If the CEO is unable to negotiate what they are worth, they should hire a dreaded MBA to help them.
Is that all you need to ask in considering how ethical an action is?
The whole point of ethics is to reason in the context of tensions. Tensions between what you want and what others want. Companies have responsibilities to more than their investors. Their employees, their communities, their customers, their environment. Focusing exclusively on one side of the tension has nothing to do with ethics.
Focusing disproportionately on investors is also ethically convenient, because their interests are often aligned with yours.
"an arm's length negotiation with CEOs of angel invested startups seeking to be the CEOs of the worlds largest, most innovative companies is well within that line."
It may seem obvious to you, but it's clearly not obvious to grandparent since that is what the argument is about.
"Fiduciary responsibility is the core of business ethics that should never be violated. Within fiduciary responsibility you still can't do anything illegal."
I think this position doesn't require the word 'ethics'. You can get by with just 'laws'.
This isn't a rhetorical device. I think lots of people think this, and honestly am ok with it. At the least it's internally consistent. It just fails for me because it doesn't permit asking, "what should the laws be?"