[tenpies]

Tesla has a very rich history of destroying the lives of whistleblowers and injured workers

The Musk apologists in particular are very keen to never talk about this, since based on documents produced under oath, Musk himself is extremely vengeful and personally oversees the retaliation.

E.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon...

There is more of this coming down the pipe in a few weeks, but it's not like the Tesla fans will care. I mean you can basically google "Tesla whistleblower" or "Tesla injury" and get hundreds of results of awful stories that probably don't even happen in sweatshops, but clearly if you're "saving the planet", destroying a few lives is excusable.

Like I've said before, Tesla is to EV what blood diamonds are to jewelry.

[seph-reed]

> but clearly if you're "saving the planet", destroying a few lives is excusable

You shouldn't put it this way. The point is he was a dick when he didn't need to be. That's not okay. But if there was a button that said "save the planet but destroy a few (<50) lives," it wouldn't be unreasonable to hit it.

[albinofrenchy]

> But if there was a button that said "save the planet but destroy a few (<50) lives," it wouldn't be unreasonable to hit it.

Of course, you are assuming the button actually does what it says. Maybe it just kills 50 people and saves a tree.

There mindset reminds me very much of religious men rolling into colonies and being ok with any kind of thing so long as they could maybe save a savages soul or two.

Once the argument hinges on grandiose intentions, damn near anything becomes "reasonable" and that is cause for alarm.

[seph-reed]

> Of course, you are assuming the button actually does what it says. Maybe it just kills 50 people and saves a tree.

You really assumed the worst of me. Of course the button does what it says, that's the point of the thought experiment. The point is that it's _not_ what Elon is doing, and it shouldn't be put in that context. The point is, if Elon was doing that, then by all means please continue. The problem is people believe he is saving earth, not that saving earth is a bad idea (even at the cost of many, many lives).

[TaylorAlexander]

I've always viewed "saving their souls" to be a kind of false rationalization to cover up the true desire for conquest.

[rhizome]

"If we can save/provide for/help just one person, it'll al worth it." ad infinitum. Such trash logic.

[TeMPOraL]

It's perfect logic, just not for humans.

Seriously though, "the end justifies the means" is a perfectly valid argument, and there's no point thinking yourself in circles, trying to bend the rules of logic so that it stops supporting a conclusion you don't like.

Instead, it's better to investigate assumptions and applicability - and there you'll note that humans are far from perfect rational actors, that people plan badly, miscalculate and forget about past costs all the time, and that power corrupts over time - and with those assumptions, a flat-out ban on "the end justifies the means" is now absolutely reasonable. Not because it's not a rational view (it is), but because it doesn't work for humans, with our faulty, hostile wetware.

[RonanTheGrey]

> a flat-out ban on "the end justifies the means" is now absolutely reasonable

Especially because nobody ever completes the original phrase...

"The ends don't justify the means, because the means make the ends."

If you use war to prevent suffering, you get suffering. If you use hate to stop hate, you get hate. etc.

This is a long way of saying, we become the very thing we fight. Humans aren't capable of using "the ends justify the means" without that happening, due to our faulty, hostile wetware... as you note!

[seph-reed]

> it doesn't work for humans, with our faulty, hostile wetware.

Do you believe there is a future of humanity in which we don't figure out how to handle this? Does this seem like the kind of thing that can be figured out through group discussion, or is it better approached by strong leadership?

My personal philosophy is that we should operate like a game with players and refs. The refs technically have power, but aren't allowed to tell the players what to do. The players do not get to make the rules.

I think people should very clearly delineate between phases of their life where they are taking responsibility and focusing on society (refing), and phases of their life where they're just enjoying it (playing). No mixing the two. Either serious mode, or fun mode, but the moment you mix the two you get a conflict of interest: players should not ref. Fun people have a hard time being taken seriously, serious people aren't much fun.. it's just a bad thing to mix.

At the same time, refs need to know how to play. If a ref hasn't played for a long time, then their heart can't really be in the game. So refs are somewhat obligated to just let go sometimes, and later maybe they'll come back, remembering that the power is not what's important; the game is what really matters.

[rhizome]

>"the end justifies the means" is a perfectly valid argument

Sure, it just tends to be incredibly destructive, like you imply at the end of your comment. For me, this makes it bad.

[wrren]

The idea that Elon Musk would stop producing electric cars or solar panels in the event that he was made to stop questionable management tactics within his companies is an odd one. I realise that the U.S' regulatory appetite isn't what it used to be, so he'll probably keep getting away with this kind of thing, but you shouldn't have to accept his or any other leader's bad behaviour in exchange for the goods his company provides.