It's not necessarily that Travis acknowledges that he acts immoral. After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers. Surely he slipped with the whole UberX and driver's pay going way to low, but that was a necessary measure against Lyft taking up the untapped market. Would be interesting to hear how he feels about that whole thing and whether he regrets doing the thing which he essentially had to do.

In regard to self-driving, Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business if Uber didn't start getting on the same train. In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.

> but that was a necessary measure against Lyft taking up the untapped market

> Google would have taken the place and drove Uber out of business

That is exactly what I am talking. "I wanted to win against them" might be an explanation, but not a freaking excuse. Having choice between getting advantage and not doing something unethical, Uber consistently chosen unethical. Feeling bad about those things once you get caught is probably nicer then not feeling bad, but does not make all that much difference in real world. How you feel does not changes impact of your actions on other people nor their morality.

> After all, he was always talking about fighting unjust and greedy taxi companies who are robbing their customers.

But somehow when taxi companies are as greedy as him and as unjust as him, then it is bad. Or rather, this was just populism/propaganda to turn people against competitors and regulators - to gain advantage for himself.

> In that regard, there's not much empathy you can hold for drivers as their profession becomes a thing of the past.

Yeah and Paris taxi driver who cut tires of Uber car did what was necessary to fight Uber. Sure he essentially did what he had to do and sure since he certainly feels bad about it after being caught then it is fine.

I mean, if I claim my collegue achievments my own or badmouth him behind back to make him look less capable and put myself up, then I am just essentially doing what I have to do, right?

Does all this begin with the premise that law-breaking is by necessity immoral?

No, I don't think that all law-breaking is by necessity immoral. People who broke the law and printed illegal literature in soviet block are heroes. Or people who helped runaway slaves. Eduard Snowden broke the law and I find it perfectly fine. If you don't stop at stop sign on bicycle, I don't find it particularly immoral.

However, law-breaking in order to get ahead of business competition is far away from the above categories.

People saving me from being scammed are also heroes.

Even if they are breaking corrupt laws passed by the lobbyists working for the incumbents? Regulatory capture is a thing that harms society and Uber has done more to undo that harm than in this industry than anyone else.

If that would be true, they would not push for change in locations where regulations were sane. If they stood for pure market only, they would not sabotage competitors. They have their own lobbyist pushing for whatever suits them.

He's not doing it because of that, though. He's doing it to get money. If he really felt that way, he'd be living to remove those laws.

> was a necessary measure

Ah yes, the favorite excuse of scoundrels. It was "necessary".

Of course it was also "necessary" for Uber drivers to feed their kids. But hey, can't worry about that, we gotta disrupt!

> doing the thing which he essentially had to do

That's not how morality works.