This is as far from a pointless philosophical debate as it could possibly be. We are discussing whether people should be able, in practice, to get root on their own phones. Leaving kernel bugs unfixed is the way that happens today. When people get root on their phones, they can then uninstall the malware that is already installed on the phone when they buy it.
At this point, Android user-owners are the vast majority of the Linux-using world, and indeed the computer-using world. Their needs and interests would outweigh those of everyone else if they were actually in opposition.
1. The vast majority of Android users don't know or care about it. They use what's on the device when they get it and if anyone's getting root, it's more likely to be a malware author than the user.
2. If the manufacturer locks you out, the benefit from a root exploit is time-limited until they ship an update and you're faced with losing root or having known security problems.
3. Using root when the manufacturer doesn't want you to is likely to be used as an excuse to deny support requests later.
It's not helpful to anyone to suggest a computing experience which can change at any time and requires them to delay things like security updates until a new exploit can be found. #1 and #3 combine, in that people are either going to avoid using an exploit if it could mean eating the cost of a new phone at any time or, worse, their buddy will do it for them but not help with the ongoing sysadmin work needed to keep the rooted phone secure. It's worth remembering that the only iPhone users at risk of the Hacking Team exploits were the ones who'd jailbroken the device; I'd bet anyone affected reconsidered how much installing ad blocker or pirated game was really worth.
If you want root, the only viable solution is to refuse to give money to vendors which don't let you have it, which currently means contacting your government to express your support for legal restrictions on devices which cannot be customized by the user. If you continue to support restrictive vendors with your wallet, absolutely nothing will change.
Aha. This is a nice motive for the no-more-Linus-in-Linux conspiracy theory, if one thinks that it takes a Linus-level principled stand to keep openness on this issue.
It is philosophically pointless, as you are arguing from an untenable position: if you don't trust your system provider, you shouldn't trust your system. Leaving kernel bugs unfixed does not make your system any more trustworthy.
From a practical point of view, it's a different matter: the exploits may allow you to regain some control over an untrusted device. But you still have the fundamental disparity of you trying to gain (software) control over an untrusted (hardware) device. That makes it a pointless philosophical debate regardless of practical use.
Oh, I hadn't thought of that interpretation of "pointless philosophical debate". You're right: considered as a purely philosophical debate, it's pointless. But considered as a debate over what practical measures to improve our contingent human reality in the face of non-ideal and poorly understood circumstances, it's far from pointless.
In the real world of actual humans with every day problems, control is often more valuable than trust and trust without control can lead to situations where there is no value at all :/.
At this point, Android user-owners are the vast majority of the Linux-using world, and indeed the computer-using world. Their needs and interests would outweigh those of everyone else if they were actually in opposition.