3 ms·
> And does that apply to any immoral action, or do you draw a line? You're arguing in circles here. Immoral is in the eye of the beholder, culturally, so by de
by jimmywanger 9y ago
> And does that apply to any immoral action, or do you draw a line?
You're arguing in circles here. Immoral is in the eye of the beholder, culturally, so by defining something as "immoral" you're just labelling it as "bad" and asking somebody to justify decisions. That's a loaded question and a cheap rhetorical technique.
You could make an argument that since most governed people in China don't mind that they have limited freedom of speech, there is nothing immoral about it. It's not like there are riots breaking out in the streets often
- icebraining 9y agoNo, I'm asking under Barrin92's own moral code: if there's nothing Apple could do that Barrin92 would find morally abhorrent and worth criticizing Apple for, assuming it was legal in the other country. It's not like there are riots breaking out in the streets often That's a funny position. So if the people actually hated it, but the State's repression mechanisms kept them in line, it would be moral?
- Barrin92 9y agoI'm saying regardless of what my or someone elses moral positions are, businesses are not the right body to carry them out. Apple is a business, not a governmental or civic institution. And to answer your question, of course Apple could do things that I consider morally abhorrent (even if they happen to be legal), but it is the public's and the respective governments job to set out the laws, it's not the job of Apple's CEO.