They are not understanding that it's not one person's moral failing at the root of it, it's the system that forces everyone into participating in amoral things, including for example the investors of Meta who are getting a bigger bag. That includes every one of you S&P500 index fund hodlers.
It's both. We can point to individuals who make terrible decisions and also acknowledge that there will always be such people as long as the system incentivizes them.
How many of index fund investors take a short position on Meta to cancel out that share? That's pretty easy to do. If it's nobody then everyone is "such people" and it is meaningless to single out any one person. Just acknowledge that there is no moral high ground for anyone. You either provide labor or capital to the enterprise, which is worse?
No. It's not not doing everything, it's not doing even the easiest thing.
You don't get to hide behind "investing" just because there are some intermediaries to move money for you. You are actively gaining a profit from Meta and investing for the long term, meaning you don't even need the money for 10+ years. That's way worse than someone contributing labor to do some work in exchange for pay now. In fact you are paying their salary to do all these things you despise, and insist that they do more of it for more $ every quarter when there are any number of safe though less profitable alternatives. How does it feel?
Talk is cheap. Time to put your money where your mouth is.
Yes, it actually is, because your argument can be applied to every moral question. Why aren't you taking a short position in Meta when Meta is an evil company? Why are you drinking a coffee while a kid in Africa is starving? Why aren't you standing by the lake if a kid could be drowning?
People can't be expected to do literally every single thing that would make a positive impact. But they absolutely can be expected not to actively do evil.
> In fact you are paying their salary
I don't hold any investments in Meta, direct or indirect.
I'll make sure to shame my Illumina scientist neighbor for working on tech that deliberately targets underage children (purposely violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.). After all, he owns the world's most popular index fund, which includes Meta. He certainly should feel just as culpable as the Meta employees!
The Meta employee does as they are told. Your neighbor gives money to Zuck and asks him to tell the Meta employee what to do, sharing in profit with Zuck. Yes, he is worse. Way worse. Drug mule vs. drug financier type worse. He can also stop any time with a few clicks. What's stopping him?
Your argument erases the employee's biggest moral choice: did the Meta employee just spawn a Meta employee? No, they chose to work there. You assign maximal agency to someone buying an index fund and minimal agency to someone who voluntarily spends 40 hours a week advancing Meta's objectives. That's backwards. (Or, more likely, a purposeful troll comment).
Did the index fund just drop in someone's lap? No. They chose to place orders to turn cash into stocks that control Meta's objectives. Every argument you make about an employee you can make about an investor. The difference is, as I said, the chain of command goes one way, and history has something to say about the relative culpability of each end. You may want to reflect on that.
At the end of the day, how someone spends 40 hours a week is as much your business as how someone spends their money is my business. That you fail to see it is indicative of your own biases.
Wrong. It's someone who owns shares in some LLC that does contract killing and hired the hit man, and many others. You keep trying to skirt around the obvious, which looks very ridiculous.
