You can&#x27;t look at ethics that way.<p>The general rule about &quot;improving things a little is better than doing nothing&quot; would philosophically require you to take a much broader view of the improvements you think you do and see if they affect other things causally. If you do that you quickly run into problems and things become much more complex. Yet thats what you do when you look at ethics.<p>For instance:<p><i>&quot;Now instead of having no taxis at all, people can choose between an expensive taxi or no taxi at all – a marginal improvement. Needless to say, Uber has been repeatedly lambasted for doing something instead of leaving the even-worse status quo the way it was.&quot;</i><p>From the perspective of those who can afford surge pricing this is an improvement not for those who cant.<p>Uber is planning on making cars automated, thats great for the consumer but not for those driver who suddenly find themselves out of jobs. People who helped pay for ubers automation of their fleet.<p>The more correct &quot;interpretation&quot; is to not call it ethical or non-ethical. It&#x27;s both correct and not correct.<p>In other words from an ethical point of view and to stay in the quantum theoretical jargon — it&#x27;s not been observed.