4 ms·
> Charitable causes do not trump the entirety of the rest of human endeavour and for-profit entities are not intrinsically amoral. These are trivial near-tauto
by jshevek 10y ago
> Charitable causes do not trump the entirety of the rest of human endeavour and for-profit entities are not intrinsically amoral.
These are trivial near-tautologies addressing irrelevant and extreme positions. For example, some "charitable" causes are outright corrupt.
> By that logic Apple's users could have purchased cheaper non-Apple products and donated the remaining money to non-profits.
Most of us buy expensive hardware because we want expensive hardware, not because we want to pretend to be doing good in the world. Anyone foolish enough to think that they are making the world a better place by buying apple products would be appropriately subject to the same criticism: it would be far better if they bought cheaper hardware and used the difference in some intelligent way to make the world a better place.
> This entire line of moral reasonsing just doesn't work.
That's what happens when you apply slippery slope style reasoning unnecessarily. There is nothing illogical about looking at both (a) what one actually does and (b) what one could do - especially if there are entities praising your questionable actions as socially benign.
You are correct that one 'could always do better', but that is not a 'get out criticism free' card. Further, it needn't by itself change anyone's choice of where they draw the line for "more helpful than harmful". I believe that apple's actions here are more harmful than helpful, and the fact that their actions increase the divide between haves and have-nots is part of that evaluation.
- tptacek 10y agoYou're still not making sense. You seem to believe that Apple should not be running coding camps out of their stores, which exist whether or not they're used for coding camps. That's silly.
- jshevek 10y ago> You're still not making sense. Maybe you could be more specific. You could ask pointed questions, or quote the line or lines which you find confusing. > You seem to believe that Apple should not be running coding camps out of their stores, which exist whether or not they're used for coding camps. That's silly. Apple is a machine for making money for their shareholders. They can do whatever they like, as long as it is legal. Apple should emphatically not be praised for running coding camps out of their stores. The fact that apple's stores exist regardless of whether coding camps are run has nothing to do with anything in this conversation. Maybe you thought someone was making an argument about the allocation of real estate resources?
- tptacek 10y agoIf all you're saying is that Apple shouldn't get extra kudos for running (Apple-tech-focused) programming camps at their own stores, fine. I might even agree with you. Super boring point, but, whatever. But your original comment suggests you believe Apple is doing more harm than good with the camps. That point is interesting because, as I said, it seems silly.
- jshevek 10y agoIf by 'original comment' you mean one of the grandparents in which I mention "social justice", I wasn't exactly trying to say "they don't deserve kudos" in that comment, and I wasn't exactly trying to say "they are doing more harm than good". I would extract: "there is an additional axis to consider when considering the degree of social benefit and social harm caused by apple's camps - and that axis is suggested by the question: Does this increase or decrease social inequality?" I think that the camps necessarily will increase social inequality, but not on a scale that I find concerning at this point. By itself, modestly increasing social inequality wouldn't mean that apple is doing more harm than good, as there is a good to be found in educating children, even if those children are not always the most disadvantaged children. It all depends on how one personally assigns weight to each factor under consideration. As an aside (and this surely colors my tone, but not the argument intended) it happens that I do personally consider the camps to be 'more harm than good' (but only marginally so) when everything is weighed together, but I wasn't trying to make that suggestion in the grandparent.