I would much rather have the person managing a large portion of my life savings have their hang ups be little quaint ones that make it clear he tries his hardest not to take advantage of shareholders.

I’m confident that we agree that it is very important that the CEO should behave in a rational way AND not take advantage of shareholders. I guess the question comes down to judging whether it is better to have a well-meaning attitude which actually harms shareholders because it is irrational (like this particular attitude of Buffett’s, although it has admittedly evolved in the right direction), or one that is rational but seems less ethical (by owning shares in the defence sector, for instance).

I would rather have someone who just stays rational, to hell with irrational people that may not like it, which I would call the Munger attitude. But opinions can reasonably differ, and some may prefer the Buffett attitude. Both can work, and the combination of the two was really great!