I think it is naive to think that only selfless and competent people will take the role then. If properly competent you'd see the massive risk of jail and be highly discouraged to take the position. Noone in their right mind would risk jailtime for a job position.

On the other hand, billionaires, risktakers and gamblers would be more than willing to take such a role for the power it gives. They don't really care since billionaires manage their risks with all the money they have, and risktakers and gamblers simply just dont care about it untill it hits them.

So it solves nothing

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If selfish or incompetent people take the role they go to jail, if highly ethical people take the role they don't go to jail. Generally how laws are supposed to be written.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You act like Ethics are somehow subjective.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well sometimes it is.. very much subjective... That's why different countries have different laws. Each country have subjective views on what should be punished or not and how much punishment is right. If Ethics is always objective and like a maths equation that can be solved we should all just have the same laws because it's objective.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

FiniteBanjo: You act like Ethics are somehow subjective.

TDCN: Well sometimes it is… very much subjective…

Found the CEO.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lol... You are not even trying to argue your case. Why are you getting personal? No need to be like that.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago

I think the communications failed around the time you started arguing against ethics themselves, with an added appeal to authority fallacy.