5 ms·

I'm not sure I'll ever understand this: "Rockefeller leaves me with the problematic impression of a benevolent dictator: positive outcomes for society by distr

I'm not sure I'll ever understand this: "Rockefeller leaves me with the problematic impression of a benevolent dictator: positive outcomes for society by distressing means, enacted by a man with tunnel vision." He said that everything he did for the industry and for humanity was good. So why is this distressing? Shouldn't someone who is ruthlessly good be seen as a hero?

stdbrouw 10y ago
You mean you don't understand the rationale behind the expression "the end does not justify the means" or something more specific?
- Retra 10y ago
  The rational behind that expression is only confusion on the practical difference between ends and means.
mattnewton 10y ago
It's like when you handed in a math problem and you got the right answer but didn't show your work. Reinforcing that behavior is troubling because yes, we want good, but we want consistent and explainable good that is auditable by society.
- mseebach 10y ago
  But then it's also like when the student who shows his work, but gets the answer wrong, rises to the top of the class, gets the girl and a highly paid job in management consulting, because we ended up caring more about the process than the outcome. While the student who gets the answer right every time but can't be bothered to show his work ends up in a cubicle, endlessly berated for not putting cover sheets on his TPS reports (as mandated by the management consultants).
johnloeber 10y ago
I tried to show that Rockefeller was essentially a zealot: unwilling to ever admit to any nuance, and impossible to bring off his course. It's good that his actions were constructive, but they very easily could have been destructive (e.g. had he held slightly different values, had malicious advisors). That inspires worry in me.
- ci5er 10y ago
  You're right: A monopolist that unleashes economic bounty for the American consumer with always increasingly lower prices for the principle input to the new world economy. Quite worrisome. Could be bad. We'll ignore the saving the whales thing, because it was purely an incidental side effect.
  - andrepd 10y ago
    I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic. If you are, you missed the whole point of the post above you.
    - ci5er 10y ago
      Or, maybe, you've missed the point that I disagree with the sentiment of the author of the comment to which I was responding. The only negative I could find in the article was that he was a "monopolist" (whatever that means to the author) and hence, that's bad. Was he using his monopolist power to cheat widows and orphans, or to deliver cheap heating oil to New York City?
      - andrepd 10y ago
        No, because the point of the comment above you was precisely that, while he did so some good things in the end, and that was positive, he could just as easily been evil. And I shudder to think what a man with such power and ruthlessness and resources could do. He didn't do any major harm in the end, but he could very easy had, had he just been as ruthless and efficient and unwaveringly certain of the justness of his cause as he was, but with more sinister ends instead. Benevolent dictators are bad, even if they did good, because them existing means a bad one could just as easily appear.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
What should be seen is what is. Trying to make narrative out of it becomes futile at some level of detail.

stdbrouw 10y ago

You mean you don't understand the rationale behind the expression "the end does not justify the means" or something more specific?

Retra 10y ago
The rational behind that expression is only confusion on the practical difference between ends and means.

mattnewton 10y ago

It's like when you handed in a math problem and you got the right answer but didn't show your work. Reinforcing that behavior is troubling because yes, we want good, but we want consistent and explainable good that is auditable by society.

mseebach 10y ago
But then it's also like when the student who shows his work, but gets the answer wrong, rises to the top of the class, gets the girl and a highly paid job in management consulting, because we ended up caring more about the process than the outcome. While the student who gets the answer right every time but can't be bothered to show his work ends up in a cubicle, endlessly berated for not putting cover sheets on his TPS reports (as mandated by the management consultants).

johnloeber 10y ago

I tried to show that Rockefeller was essentially a zealot: unwilling to ever admit to any nuance, and impossible to bring off his course. It's good that his actions were constructive, but they very easily could have been destructive (e.g. had he held slightly different values, had malicious advisors). That inspires worry in me.

ci5er 10y ago
You're right: A monopolist that unleashes economic bounty for the American consumer with always increasingly lower prices for the principle input to the new world economy. Quite worrisome. Could be bad. We'll ignore the saving the whales thing, because it was purely an incidental side effect.
- andrepd 10y ago
  I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic. If you are, you missed the whole point of the post above you.
  - ci5er 10y ago
    Or, maybe, you've missed the point that I disagree with the sentiment of the author of the comment to which I was responding. The only negative I could find in the article was that he was a "monopolist" (whatever that means to the author) and hence, that's bad. Was he using his monopolist power to cheat widows and orphans, or to deliver cheap heating oil to New York City?
    - andrepd 10y ago
      No, because the point of the comment above you was precisely that, while he did so some good things in the end, and that was positive, he could just as easily been evil. And I shudder to think what a man with such power and ruthlessness and resources could do. He didn't do any major harm in the end, but he could very easy had, had he just been as ruthless and efficient and unwaveringly certain of the justness of his cause as he was, but with more sinister ends instead. Benevolent dictators are bad, even if they did good, because them existing means a bad one could just as easily appear.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

What should be seen is what is. Trying to make narrative out of it becomes futile at some level of detail.