I think the Jesus and saint juxtaposition confused me (saints first appeared about 200-300 years after Jesus, and no one has ever claimed Jesus was a saint, etc).
Anyway, thank you for your clarification.
To be clear, I do not think that we have streams of 'Jesus-scale saints' who are smart, rich (as Jesus ostensibly said, that won't get you into heaven), and ready to help.
I do think we have a bunch of problems, and some institutions (governments, for example) that have been developed with the intent of solving those problems.
If the problems of society/ies require that we have [the head of] an organisation convicted for violating the Sherman antitrust act come to rescue us with their ill-gotten gains, then perhaps we (as a society) should be aiming higher.
Mind, I'm coming at this from a naive, optimistic attitude of wanting to not need heroes in order to save us all from each other.
> I think the Jesus and saint juxtaposition confused me (saints first appeared about 200-300 years after Jesus, and no one has ever claimed Jesus was a saint, etc).
Fair enough. Maybe my "Jesus-level saint" expression was needlessly confusing indeed.
> Mind, I'm coming at this from a naive, optimistic attitude of wanting to not need heroes in order to save us all from each other.
Ok, I get that. Personally, I think I've lost that optimism some time ago now, and figured we have no option but to work with what we have, as imperfect as it is. I liked my utopian/dreamer self better, though.
WRT Gates, I'm not pretending his tenure at Microsoft wasn't full of malicious actions. But then, in my mind there is a kind of quality difference between just being a huge ass in the business game, and directly trying to hurt (or kill) people. Gates was only the former, and never the latter (to the best of my knowledge), and right now his actions are actually saving lives and making more lives better.
Then again, I just figured out an example that lets me emphasize more with the critics. I was never impacted directly by Microsoft's past misbehaviour, and I was a kid through most of the bad stuff that was going down. But if today the top brass of Uber was to create something similar to Gates Foundation, ... well, I'd definitely feel conflicted. On the one hand, I'm responsive to utilitarian arguments, and Uber didn't exactly go around killing people either. On the other hand, the amount of sociopathy they've displayed for the past ~5 years left such a bad a taste in my mouth, that I'm not sure if I'd be able to support that hypothetical help-the-world venture.
So maybe I'm being uncharitable to you and some other critics; maybe my Uber is your Microsoft.
Seriously, thank you for that very thoughtful and candid comment.
I was going to leave it at that ... but, couldn't. :)
You're right, of course, that we each grow up observing different parts of our societies -- government, elite, and celebrities (a hugely abused word) -- and our evaluation of these shape our own ethics and expectations of others' ethics.
From 2002, an article in The Register (UK) tech rag:
"We do hate to rain on a high-profile corporate love-fest, but we have to point out that in addition to the much trumpeted $100 million Billg has donated to India's fight against HIV, he's funding the Microsoft jihad against Linux to the far more impressive tune of $421 million. That means that Linux is more than four times worse than AIDS to Billg and his happy Redmond family. God forbid any of them should learn the bitter truth the hard way and start talking sense.
"Billg's personal $100 million goes to health initiatives over ten years, while $421 million of Microsoft's money goes, over a mere three years, to support MS-friendly development and 'educational' initiatives. And being a monster MS shareholder himself, a 'Big Win' in India will enrich him personally, perhaps well in excess of the $100 million he's donating to the AIDS problem. Makes you wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here.
"Oh, and let's not forget the five, count 'em, five, vanity puff-pieces appearing in the New York Times this week glorifying Billg's generosity, one of which he wrote himself. That's worth quite a lot too, in PR brownie points for both him and his company. It's far better than free advertising; it actually looks like news and therefore has immensely more persuasive value."
Undeniably El Reg had / have their own agenda, and it was Bill's foundation in one case and Microsoft in the other that they're comparing the dollar-figures of ... and yet ... it's hard to feel the same 'aww gee' response that's expected of us now.
But, for what little it's worth, I agree that Uber's not a net force for good either.
I think the Jesus and saint juxtaposition confused me (saints first appeared about 200-300 years after Jesus, and no one has ever claimed Jesus was a saint, etc).
Anyway, thank you for your clarification.
To be clear, I do not think that we have streams of 'Jesus-scale saints' who are smart, rich (as Jesus ostensibly said, that won't get you into heaven), and ready to help.
I do think we have a bunch of problems, and some institutions (governments, for example) that have been developed with the intent of solving those problems.
If the problems of society/ies require that we have [the head of] an organisation convicted for violating the Sherman antitrust act come to rescue us with their ill-gotten gains, then perhaps we (as a society) should be aiming higher.
Mind, I'm coming at this from a naive, optimistic attitude of wanting to not need heroes in order to save us all from each other.