9 ms·

> If Peter Thiel's goal was to help out defenseless individuals harmed by thoughtless journalists, that suggests one set of structures. E.g., a public nonprofit

by dpark 10y ago

> If Peter Thiel's goal was to help out defenseless individuals harmed by thoughtless journalists, that suggests one set of structures. E.g., a public nonprofit This has popped up several times in this thread, and I don't see why it's true. There's no obligation, legal or moral, that philanthropy be coordinated through a nonprofit. The only reason for the nonprofit is to get tax advantages. If you're donating tens of million of dollars to a nonprofit, it'll be to one where you wield significant control (officially or not). If Thiel's actions here were inappropriate, they'd be exactly as inappropriate if managed through a nonprofit.

wpietri 10y ago
"E.g." means "for example". By which I mean: there are a bunch of ways he could do this, and I was suggesting one. Also note that I said other words than "nonprofit" that are part of the example that I expected people to generalize from. But to yield to your nitpicking for a moment, your last sentence is wrong. Nonprofits have public disclosure requirements and state audits to make sure that they are acting to actually benefit the public. So him putting tens of millions into a nonprofit would be a) inherently less wrong, because they would not have been secret, and b) likely to be yet less wrong, in that they would have had to face substantial scrutiny from public servants.
- dpark 10y ago
  I agree that there are a bunch of ways he could do this. What I don't agree is that any of those other ways are inherently more moral. The morality of an action is independent of the legal structure erected around that action. You might prefer a non-profit or some other structure that doesn't make it easy for Thiel to hide his involvement, but the reality is that none of that matters morally (or legally, really). Bad actions don't become good because a non-profit manages them and good actions don't become bad when they are performed by private citizens. Your ideas about non-profits being "less wrong" are just incorrect. Privacy and secrecy are not immoral things. A non-profit structure would be more transparent but that doesn't make it "less wrong". Secrecy can hide bad actions but can also make possible good ones. e.g. An ex-con (or at the more extreme end, a Nazi) who wants to donate to cancer research might have his public donation rejected on moral grounds. The donation is moral even if the person has engaged in other immoral acts. A secret donation is therefore more moral in this case because it is more likely to be accepted. More immediately relevant, Thiel's public backing of the suit might have made a win less likely, meaning that if funding the suit is moral, funding it privately was the more effective and therefore more moral option.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    You seem to be very excited to argue about a variety of points I'm not actually making. Your secret-Nazi fantasies notwithstanding, I see this aa pretty simple reverse engineering. If his goal is to change how journalists behave, there are effective, well-known ways to do that. I believe his approach is inconsistent with that, but perfectly consistent with a personal vendetta. If your carefully considered analysis of approaches to social change differs, well, it differs. I'm ok with that.
    - dpark 10y ago
      I argued specifically to points you made. It's intellectually dishonest for you to make intentionally vague claims and then assert that I am arguing against points you didn't make when I respond to your vague claims. You've proposed nothing concrete but a non-profit and provided no reason why that changes the morality of the action. Beyond that you've just made hand-wavey claims full of weasel phrases. If there are "well known ways" to change how journalists behave, then please enumerate these and clarify why they are better than what Thiel did. If there are "a bunch of ways" Thiel could help individuals harmed by bad journalism, then please elucidate, because right now it seems like you don't have anything real to say.
      - wpietri 10y ago
        I think I said it pretty well. Others have had no trouble understanding me. If one demanding anonymous person doesn't understand my point, I can live with that.

by dpark 10y ago

wpietri 10y ago

"E.g." means "for example". By which I mean: there are a bunch of ways he could do this, and I was suggesting one. Also note that I said other words than "nonprofit" that are part of the example that I expected people to generalize from. But to yield to your nitpicking for a moment, your last sentence is wrong. Nonprofits have public disclosure requirements and state audits to make sure that they are acting to actually benefit the public. So him putting tens of millions into a nonprofit would be a) inherently less wrong, because they would not have been secret, and b) likely to be yet less wrong, in that they would have had to face substantial scrutiny from public servants.

dpark 10y ago
I agree that there are a bunch of ways he could do this. What I don't agree is that any of those other ways are inherently more moral. The morality of an action is independent of the legal structure erected around that action. You might prefer a non-profit or some other structure that doesn't make it easy for Thiel to hide his involvement, but the reality is that none of that matters morally (or legally, really). Bad actions don't become good because a non-profit manages them and good actions don't become bad when they are performed by private citizens. Your ideas about non-profits being "less wrong" are just incorrect. Privacy and secrecy are not immoral things. A non-profit structure would be more transparent but that doesn't make it "less wrong". Secrecy can hide bad actions but can also make possible good ones. e.g. An ex-con (or at the more extreme end, a Nazi) who wants to donate to cancer research might have his public donation rejected on moral grounds. The donation is moral even if the person has engaged in other immoral acts. A secret donation is therefore more moral in this case because it is more likely to be accepted. More immediately relevant, Thiel's public backing of the suit might have made a win less likely, meaning that if funding the suit is moral, funding it privately was the more effective and therefore more moral option.
- wpietri 10y ago
  You seem to be very excited to argue about a variety of points I'm not actually making. Your secret-Nazi fantasies notwithstanding, I see this aa pretty simple reverse engineering. If his goal is to change how journalists behave, there are effective, well-known ways to do that. I believe his approach is inconsistent with that, but perfectly consistent with a personal vendetta. If your carefully considered analysis of approaches to social change differs, well, it differs. I'm ok with that.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I argued specifically to points you made. It's intellectually dishonest for you to make intentionally vague claims and then assert that I am arguing against points you didn't make when I respond to your vague claims. You've proposed nothing concrete but a non-profit and provided no reason why that changes the morality of the action. Beyond that you've just made hand-wavey claims full of weasel phrases. If there are "well known ways" to change how journalists behave, then please enumerate these and clarify why they are better than what Thiel did. If there are "a bunch of ways" Thiel could help individuals harmed by bad journalism, then please elucidate, because right now it seems like you don't have anything real to say.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      I think I said it pretty well. Others have had no trouble understanding me. If one demanding anonymous person doesn't understand my point, I can live with that.