People keep citing his accomplishments (for lack of a better term) as if it has any bearing on whether something else a conflict and whether he needs to recuse or not. As if to imply that because they believe he helps in the end, it makes it not a conflict for him to be involved.
To be clear: It is irrelevant. It would be a very strange definition of "conflict of interest" if the answer depended on what happened after you already participated. The whole point of conflicts is to not participate in processes where you may be seen as unfairly advancing your own self interest, or your bias may make you not objective in a situation that requires objectivity (IE judges at trials). Note the "may be seen", etc. Conflicts policies rarely, if ever, require actual self-interest or actual non-objectivity, only the appearance of it.
Often, government and legal policies go even further, and for example, judges are required to recuse if "their impartiality might reasonably be questioned". That's it. That's the bar. It's a very low one. Government contracting is similar.
So in Elon's case, it does not matter whether he would be helpful, harmful, or whatever.
This is not a particularly tough ethical quandry, or out of the ordinary.
As for whether he'll "choose to be guilty", he was the one who said he would step aside and not participate in anything with a conflict. He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would.
He also chose to subject himself to these policies - he knew what being a government employee would require of him. To then ignore them is at best, wildly unethical.
We have a process by which these policies could be changed, and the party in office has enough power (legislative, executive) to change them.
If they think they aren't getting the outcomes needed, then change the policies, then operate according to the new ones.
Heck - there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements that they could use if Elon needs to be exempted. They have not done this either (it requires public publication of the reasoning, etc, so it would not be missed if it had happened).
There are a lot of ways to get things done without running afoul of ethics rules.
Which means "ends justify means" type arguments are mostly nonsense.
>He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would.
Do you know him as a man of his word? I don't.
I think he'll do whatever makes sense for his goals in the circumstances. And those goals are often aligned with long term good for humanity, but with a strong dose of irreverence toward the hypocritical supposed ethics rules of his detractors.
>there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements
Sure, have you requested a copy of the waiver? Most likely a SGE waiver under (208(b)(3)). No? Didn't think so. I doubt most journalists have either, since they hate him.
>it requires public publication of the reasoning
Public publication is not required. They are required to disclose upon request. You may be thinking of Individual Waivers, (208(b)(1)) where publication is required, unlike special government employees serving on advisory committees.
To be clear: It is irrelevant. It would be a very strange definition of "conflict of interest" if the answer depended on what happened after you already participated. The whole point of conflicts is to not participate in processes where you may be seen as unfairly advancing your own self interest, or your bias may make you not objective in a situation that requires objectivity (IE judges at trials). Note the "may be seen", etc. Conflicts policies rarely, if ever, require actual self-interest or actual non-objectivity, only the appearance of it.
Often, government and legal policies go even further, and for example, judges are required to recuse if "their impartiality might reasonably be questioned". That's it. That's the bar. It's a very low one. Government contracting is similar.
So in Elon's case, it does not matter whether he would be helpful, harmful, or whatever.
This is not a particularly tough ethical quandry, or out of the ordinary.
As for whether he'll "choose to be guilty", he was the one who said he would step aside and not participate in anything with a conflict. He's also required by law to do it, but he specifically said he would.
He also chose to subject himself to these policies - he knew what being a government employee would require of him. To then ignore them is at best, wildly unethical.
We have a process by which these policies could be changed, and the party in office has enough power (legislative, executive) to change them.
If they think they aren't getting the outcomes needed, then change the policies, then operate according to the new ones.
Heck - there is even a process for exempting people from various conflict requirements that they could use if Elon needs to be exempted. They have not done this either (it requires public publication of the reasoning, etc, so it would not be missed if it had happened).
There are a lot of ways to get things done without running afoul of ethics rules. Which means "ends justify means" type arguments are mostly nonsense.