[aridiculous]

I never said his morality had to be "Responsible, Serious and Altruistic." It looks like you're assuming that morality is a simple construct used only by politicians for deception. In reality, almost every significant, powerful figure I've read about has some guidelines to his or her behavior, even if it's a pluralistic framework.

Additionally, it was strange that you projected your own Utilitarian belief system onto pg. I've never read or heard him articulate his moral position; he alludes to one in "Things you can't say," but obviously doesn't say it.

I think a lot of the HN crowd is very good at examining hard subjects like science but is under-developed in the humanities. That's an obvious statement due to the nature of this forum, but it doesn't hurt as a reminder that maybe there are unknown unknowns to the human condition you may have not considered.

[philwelch]

> I've never read or heard him articulate his moral position; he alludes to one in "Things you can't say," but obviously doesn't say it.

Funny side note: moral positions, in the abstract, aren't usually things you can't say. They usually sound eminently reasonable, until you work out the consequences. This is more or less the history of ethics.

[zyfo]

The "Responsible, Serious and Altruistic" bit was a bit of a straw man I must admit. My point was basically that:

1) if pg doesn't have some well thought out and articulated perspective on moral questions, that's OK - he's not a priest

2) Saying it's alarming is basically pushing him and people like him into taking a (probably artificial) position for the sake of taking one.

3) Just because one is powerful doesn't mean one has to be a role model in all areas of life. This is unnecessary pressure on an individual who hasn't asked for it - he's basically a sort of VC, he isn't running for president - and I don't see anything good coming out of it.

I chose a utilitarian belief system as an example because it felt like the most non-controversial one to make a point. Incidentally, I don't subscribe to it.

Agreed about humanities, but I don't really see the connection to your OP.

Here's a highly related essay by pg, by the way: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

[aridiculous]

I admire your balanced temper in your response (as my earlier was a bit charged), but I can't say I'm swayed.

Overall, I think pg was just thrown off-guard by the question and could probably come up with a more adequate answer off-stage, particularly because he has a background in philosophy. I was using him, wrongly, as an example of the technocratic tendency to not consider morality in decision-making. However, I'll continue here with a response to your objections pretending he really is a less well-rounded VC:

I think your responses are emblematic of a current societal tendency to be easy on leadership and powerful people, because they're "just human." I don't agree with that tendency to not hold leaders accountable to a higher standard, and I don't think it's right for a person with that much power to not have a clear moral position on who he or she does business with. We can all disagree on what we think is right, but I think there are many who have been led to believe that they simply can't expect more out of certain people because it's not "fair." I'm merely providing a counter-opinion to that.

About the humanities, that was said out of frustration that you/others may not have been exposed to moral frameworks outside of the traditional religious and political tie-ins. It was an incorrect sweeping generalization, but regardless, it doesn't hurt anyone to be reminded of these subjects now and again :)