If he is not responsible, then who is? I'm sorry but CEOs can't have it both ways. If you want to be paid at the (insane) current levels you have to take responsibility for the outcomes of your actions. The only other entity that might have some responsibility is the board for not getting rid of Kalanick sooner.
Befehl ist Befehl.
"I was only following orders."
The person following the orders certainly shares some of the responsibility, but the person giving the orders bears even more of the responsibility.
To me "morally reprehensible" implies something quite extreme, like, say, genocide, callous violent crime, rape, etc.
Uber did lots of, if not ethically grey, completely unethical (and unlawful) things. Least of which includes tracking regulators and government inspectors, and also surveillance on their users and celebrities based on the rides they'd take. That's not even counting all the bro culture and sexual harassment that seems to have been rampant.
It does come from the top. A lot of those people that were fired, were hired by Kalanick.
Nobody's shedding a tear for a jerk like Kalanick, especially not after his multi-billion dollar payout. He'll be just fine. In fact, by any stretch of it, he's being HANDSOMELY rewarded for his behavior.
He has simply no reason to change.
What? I didn't say that it was "fine". I'm just trying to get a handle on the scope here. When I think of things that are morally reprehensible, I think of the things I mentioned in my post.
Clearly, I don't think Uber is there, so I disagree with the notion that they acted in a "morally reprehensible" way.
Do I think that they behaved unethically, even criminally so? Yes, I think that you can make a strong case for that.
Maybe I'm making a semantic argument? If so, I think I'm getting weary of our constant 24/7 media stream of outrage, and for that I apologize since that's neither here nor there...