[SR2Z]

Because the vast majority of the time, that design stops pilots from stalling the aircraft and makes maintenance easier.

Flying airplanes is not a natural fit for the human brain. It's very helpful to have a computer mediating inputs to keep the aircraft stable.

[dghlsakjg]

And yet, that design did not stop the pilot from stalling the plane as that was the cause of the crash, the design actually helped the pilot stall the plane without even knowing it. The argument isn't that computers shouldn't play a role in flight controls (indeed some military aircraft are unflyable without a computer in the loop), its that the interface - which is completely unique among all other airliners and commercial passenger planes - is so non-intuitive that it allowed something to happen that would not have been possible.

If you go full stick back in any other airliner, the other pilot will know it immediately, and can physically correct the input. Other planes have stall prevention and awareness in the form of stick shakers and stick pushers that give the pilot physical feedback, and in the case of a pusher makes the pilot physically fight against the safe action (in the case of the MAX, trim adjustment - a roundabout way of stick pushing - was implemented in an exceptionally stupid way that made it overpower the pilots)