amok: "Games are digital, and DRM is digital. DRM is bad, but there are also many other arbitrary digital things that I think are bad. Therefore, anything digital that I think is bad is DRM."

alaric.us: As a currently-successful person, I have, obviously, asked myself this question before so I already have the answer for you. While I do enjoy certain perks of having more money than average, I am actually comfortable with fairly little. Were I to be sent back to the starting point, I'd find it supremely annoying but not the end of the world. I'd get back on my feet soon enough, and even if I never again have quite as much, I know that I can be content with less.

Now, if I was a leader of a group of people who trusted me and followed me, or simply people who depended on me - that would be an entirely different story. I tend to feel a disproportionate sense of responsibility and am not as picky about the means by which to fulfill that responsibility. Of course, knowing this about myself I avoid placing myself in situations of that type: I don't start businesses and don't have children.

Edit: I gotta say, idea that working for Microsoft is somehow a "Faustian bargain" make me chuckle. You will be [dis?]pleased to know that I've made that bargain before and it worked out pretty well for me. =)

alaric.us: You'd be surprised. But yes, you are also right in that things could be even worse. Same is true for success, I know there are people who wouldn't consider me successful at all. I guess all things are relative and depend on what you compare them to.

Now if the people I felt responsible for would be perfectly happy with what was coming their way (being fired in this case) then there is no dilemma to be had. Something tells me, however, that they wouldn't be. It's odd that you'd assume they would. Everyone always complains about evil companies firing people, but when someone is in a position to prevent that, suddenly it's twisted on its head and presented as morally wrong. I don't understand this line of thinking.

alaric.us: When you propose that we discuss this outside of the materialistic perspective, do you suggest we assume that Microsoft is a supernatural malevolent force that would take ownership of my soul (whatever that is) after my death? If so, don't you think this hypothetical is getting a bit ... comedic?

richlind33: It isn't a question of cheerfully accepting termination, it's a choice between consequences that are known versus ones that are likely unknown and less immediate.

alaric.us: That's not what a Faustian bargain is. Dr. Faust wasn't confused about the consequences of handing his soul over to the Devil, he was a doctor of theology after all. He knew full well who the Devil was, what hell was, and what happens to souls that go to hell. The whole point of the story is that he did it knowingly.

In our (non-supernatural) case I'd imagine a Faustian bargain to be agreeing to something that's very obviously more harmful in the long term, to avoid the current (ostensibly lesser) pain. That's the difficult choice: suffer less now or suffer more later. If instead the choice was between something bad now and something unknown later, then choosing the unknown is the correct course of action.