Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Considering that she's a well known apologist of mass surveillance, what you're saying is that maybe they are simply using her and abusing her trust to undermine her own positions.

That's not exactly reassuring vis-a-vis their ethical character.




Positions on complex, high-level issues usually don't translate into predictable behaviors in specific, real-life scenarios.

As for character, it's unclear what's unsettling about presumed utilitarians acting towards what they believe to be best outcomes.


Positions on complex, high-level issues usually don't translate into predictable behaviors in specific, real-life scenarios.

If that's the problem, then shouldn't they explain the connection? Since they won't, it's only natural to assume the obvious.

And why would one presume them utilitarians?


Leaders of large companies usually have to manage a wide array of disparate and sometimes diametrically opposed interests.

The guys at Dropbox are smart; isn't the "obvious" assumption that Rice could be useful in helping them to better manage some of these interests (e.g. potentially reducing govt. snooping by facilitating a more level playing field for comms. and negotiation)?.

Aren't most reasonable people utilitarians? :)


> Aren't most reasonable people utilitarians? :)

If by reasonable, you mean "rational" in the sense of rational choice theory, and if by "utilitarians" you mean "maximize of their own individual utility" rather than "adherents to the philosophical school of utilitarianism", then, yes, all reasonable people are utilitarians, by definition.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: