On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email

Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email by vkou on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:11PM (#12857662)

Not all of the people whose correspondence they leak accept public money, or are part of governments.

They don't have much of a moral hill to stand on - unless they subscribe to the morality of "The ends justify the means." (Which most people do.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email by saint_fiasco on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:21PM (#12857746)

If the ends don't justify the means, then what does?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email by manifestsilence on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @03:10PM (#12858252)

Exactly - certain means are perhaps inherently not justifiable. Consequentialism vs. other competing philosophical stances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email by saint_fiasco on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @03:17PM (#12858320)

I see. So the interesting moral claim is not "the end justify the means" (which is too obvious) but rather "For every mean there exists at least one end that can justify it", which is controversial.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email by Swizec on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:38PM (#12857896)

Maybe you shouldn't use means that need justifying in the first place?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email by saint_fiasco on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @03:14PM (#12858291)

But then why do anything at all?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Wall Street, a high-ranking few still avoid email by cloudjacker on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @02:22PM (#12857754)

Now that you got that off of your chest, what does that have to do with this comment thread about them being more transparent?

[ Parent | on HN ]