3 ms·
> But, one controlled by a man who has proven himself time and again to be immoral at best and sociopathically evil at worst? I don't understand this sentiment
by azangru 5y ago
> But, one controlled by a man who has proven himself time and again to be immoral at best and sociopathically evil at worst?
I don't understand this sentiment. Why do we need to care how moral the man at the helm is? A leader is temporary: today's leader can be immoral, while tomorrow's leader can be moral. Or vice versa. Or a leader can be moral in such a way that you would wish he wasn't. If end users can exercise their moral choices themselves, if they can refrain from lying, or bullying, or bragging, or trolling, then so much the better. If they can't, well, then we are screwed either way.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago>Why do we need to care how moral the man at the helm is? A leader is temporary It's interesting that you raise that question in the FB context, because Zuckerberg has very specifically structured his company such that this isn't the case. He can't be removed. More broadly, we should care because such leaders accrue outsized power and can thus have outsized influence/impact on large numbers of people. >If end users can exercise their moral choices themselves, End users don't always have the info they need to choose not to participate in immoral schemes or to know that they are victims of the same. >a leader can be moral in such a way that you would wish he wasn't That argument vaguely evokes nihilism. Societies organize themselves around generally accepted moral principles, many of which are codified. Largely, we can quantify morality.