9 ms·

No, because I don't think that positive or good acts can somehow "cancel out" (or as you say, "make up for") bad or negative ones. Karma is not a concrete conce

No, because I don't think that positive or good acts can somehow "cancel out" (or as you say, "make up for") bad or negative ones. Karma is not a concrete concept, and the question "is the world better off" is objectively unanswerable.

tptacek 13y ago
Then your comment upthread is especially pointless, isn't it? Why am I meant to pay special attention to Bill Gates the man, rather than the 40 billion dollars that has been put to using entrepreneurial strategies to end global disease and poverty?
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  Yeah, fair. I should really have replied to one of the top-level commented describing Gates as a saint, or waxing lyrical about his greatness; my objection was not to the article itself, and that wasn't clear.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    That was a way more reasonable response than the tone of my comment merited. Thanks! :)
bmelton 13y ago
Hate the man's business practices. Love the man for his philanthropical work. They don't need to cancel out, and you don't need to forgive one to appreciate the other. Michael Vick was put in prison for dog fighting. I absolutely hate him for that. At the same time, I appreciate his talent on the field as a football player. Orson Scott Card is a rampant homophobe. I absolutely hate him for that. Doesn't affect my opinion of his novels though, not in the least. There's no logic in idolizing or demonizing anyone. Life's a lot better when you get out of casting a pall over everything a person does by some other things that they've done. People like making villains and heroes of people, whether or not they deserve it. We see someone we don't like from afar, and it's easy to assume that they're bad at everything, that they're horrible people, that they're bad parents, that they're likely running around kicking puppies all day long. That's very rarely the truth. With people we're nearer too, it's easier to accept that they have strengths and weaknesses, and I don't know why it's hard to imagine the same thing of famous people, but it is. There's very little to love about Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft. Similarly, there's very little to hate about Bill Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Roll with it.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > Hate the man's business practices. Love the man for his philanthropical work At the core of this is trust. Bill lost mine at Microsoft's helm - he has shown a borderline sociopath that will stop at nothing and will destroy anyone on his path. To give this much credit to someone with such dark history is appallingly naive.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    To give him trust might be naive, but giving him credit for the things he has done is just a recognition of fact. He donated $28,000,000,000 to a philanthropic organization. Refusal to "give him credit" for that is just being petty. He did it. Conversely, he engaged in anti-competitive behavior with Netscape, so he gets the credit for that too. Loving him for the former is every bit as pragmatic as hating him for the latter, but neither act means that is who he is as a person. People are far too complex for that.
  - bluekitten 13y ago
    Everytime a big company implements a feature or rolls out something, they affect companies working in that area. You can find similar things about almost any company or person, but for some reason the bad things about Microsoft are always amplified. For example, see how Google squashed Skyhook http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la... Aliyun and Acer prevented from launching a phone because of the secret rules of the "Open" Handset Alliance. http://www.zdnet.com/cn/report-google-stops-acer-from-launching-aliyun-phone-in-china-7000004246/ http://www.zdnet.com/cn/report-google-stops-acer-from-launch... Apple and the famed 30% cut of even sales from Apps, an example of how they used someone's OSS code in Safari and then banned them from the app store: http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ My point is that someone fed a steady diet of bad stories about one company while barely being exposed to good stories ends up not liking them and everyone knows how many tech sites and journalists and news sites like Slashdot and HN's bias in story selection because of the vocal minority who sometimes appear to be on a crusade of ends justifying the means.
Houshalter 13y ago
I am a consequentialist and do believe that "bad acts" are acceptable if there is a net benefit. Comiting a crime should be ok if it saves people's lives. The question is not unanswerable, it's entirely possible to measure or at least estimate how much good a charity has done, or how much harm a business has done.

tptacek 13y ago

Then your comment upthread is especially pointless, isn't it? Why am I meant to pay special attention to Bill Gates the man, rather than the 40 billion dollars that has been put to using entrepreneurial strategies to end global disease and poverty?

matthewmacleod 13y ago
Yeah, fair. I should really have replied to one of the top-level commented describing Gates as a saint, or waxing lyrical about his greatness; my objection was not to the article itself, and that wasn't clear.
- tptacek 13y ago
  That was a way more reasonable response than the tone of my comment merited. Thanks! :)

bmelton 13y ago

Hate the man's business practices. Love the man for his philanthropical work. They don't need to cancel out, and you don't need to forgive one to appreciate the other. Michael Vick was put in prison for dog fighting. I absolutely hate him for that. At the same time, I appreciate his talent on the field as a football player. Orson Scott Card is a rampant homophobe. I absolutely hate him for that. Doesn't affect my opinion of his novels though, not in the least. There's no logic in idolizing or demonizing anyone. Life's a lot better when you get out of casting a pall over everything a person does by some other things that they've done. People like making villains and heroes of people, whether or not they deserve it. We see someone we don't like from afar, and it's easy to assume that they're bad at everything, that they're horrible people, that they're bad parents, that they're likely running around kicking puppies all day long. That's very rarely the truth. With people we're nearer too, it's easier to accept that they have strengths and weaknesses, and I don't know why it's hard to imagine the same thing of famous people, but it is. There's very little to love about Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft. Similarly, there's very little to hate about Bill Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Roll with it.

rbanffy 13y ago
> Hate the man's business practices. Love the man for his philanthropical work At the core of this is trust. Bill lost mine at Microsoft's helm - he has shown a borderline sociopath that will stop at nothing and will destroy anyone on his path. To give this much credit to someone with such dark history is appallingly naive.
- bmelton 13y ago
  To give him trust might be naive, but giving him credit for the things he has done is just a recognition of fact. He donated $28,000,000,000 to a philanthropic organization. Refusal to "give him credit" for that is just being petty. He did it. Conversely, he engaged in anti-competitive behavior with Netscape, so he gets the credit for that too. Loving him for the former is every bit as pragmatic as hating him for the latter, but neither act means that is who he is as a person. People are far too complex for that.
- bluekitten 13y ago
  Everytime a big company implements a feature or rolls out something, they affect companies working in that area. You can find similar things about almost any company or person, but for some reason the bad things about Microsoft are always amplified. For example, see how Google squashed Skyhook http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la... Aliyun and Acer prevented from launching a phone because of the secret rules of the "Open" Handset Alliance. http://www.zdnet.com/cn/report-google-stops-acer-from-launching-aliyun-phone-in-china-7000004246/ http://www.zdnet.com/cn/report-google-stops-acer-from-launch... Apple and the famed 30% cut of even sales from Apps, an example of how they used someone's OSS code in Safari and then banned them from the app store: http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ My point is that someone fed a steady diet of bad stories about one company while barely being exposed to good stories ends up not liking them and everyone knows how many tech sites and journalists and news sites like Slashdot and HN's bias in story selection because of the vocal minority who sometimes appear to be on a crusade of ends justifying the means.

Houshalter 13y ago

I am a consequentialist and do believe that "bad acts" are acceptable if there is a net benefit. Comiting a crime should be ok if it saves people's lives. The question is not unanswerable, it's entirely possible to measure or at least estimate how much good a charity has done, or how much harm a business has done.