Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's a lazy argument and one I personally find morally repugnant.

It's no different than the justification some use when we talk about the ethical ramifications of selling arms to middle eastern states in conflict.

"They are going to buy their arms from someone, it may as well be us!"



I am commenting from a national interests/geostrategic angle.

It is amoral almost by definition.


National and Geostrategic interests are amoral by definition?

Only if you are an amoral actor that cares not a bit about human rights or ability to self-determination.

It is very much in the interests of the US and every democracy to uphold human rights and self-determination at every turn and every possible location in the world.

Failure to do so enables dictators, authoritarians, and criminals. The fact that we've often failed to do so, or do it well, does not mitigate the benefits when we it is done well, or the damage when we fail.

And make no mistake, failure is what you are pushing.

The only question is whether you are doing it right now as a shill for the CCP, or only because you are amoral?




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

Search: