Good riddance.
He was a sleazy creepy misogynistic exploitative perv.
Nah, I don't think he was that bad.
He was a guy of his time who saw a business opportunity to provide the masses with an escapist idealised heterosexual fantasy.
Sure, it was a fantasy that today would be rightly described as somewhat mysoginistic in its portrayal and objectification of women, but one that was also very much of the 'pin up' attitudes of most western society at that time.
And let's be honest, Playboy was never ever pornographic like say David Gold's stuff or Richard Desmonds gynaecological closeup studies that has elevated and saturated both expectations and the market these days, it was always more about the classical and attempted artistic portrayal of naked women on unattainable pedestals, Godesses, something that goes back a good few thousand years through human history.
But was he a cause or was he an effect, was he a pioneer or just a follower?
I'm not too sure, I think each will label him according to their prejudices.
I think he was more simply an opportunist who struck lucky, right product, right place, and right attitudes in a changing society, that enabled his magazine to become successful.
As to his personal level of morality and perceived (and undoubted) sleaziness, I doubt he was any different in outlook or morals from most wealthy people, or judging by what you read, certainly many premiership footballers or z list reality tv show performers, and if we are honest, probably a majority of the population if they are given the chance.
Perhaps Playboy was always, and possibly still is, more a mirror reflecting ourselves, and any objections to it or Hefner are simply expressions of our own repressed and strangely guilty attitudes towards sex when we see ourselves and recognise what we are doing and condoning in its reflection.
