• ExFed
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    I agree, it ought to be a hard line.

    Question is, though, where’s the line? We don’t all come with the same exact moral compass, and we’re all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can’t just say “be a moral and non-bigoted person” and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.

    No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it’s arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.

    • @ponfriend@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I think we can agree that those slave owners were wrong, just as we can agree that Eich was and remains wrong about gay marriage.

      • ExFed
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In my experience, anybody who claims morality is “clear cut” is probably naive, otherwise they’re selling a cult. The fact that you think my line is questioning is suspicious without knowing anything about me or anything beyond this thread makes me suspect it’s the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

        Yes, it’s a philosophical debate. That’s why I’m here, on the Internet, asking philosophical questions, to spur debate.

          • ExFed
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Please, go back and carefully read what I wrote. I’ve said nothing about whether I find Eich’s donation morally acceptable or not, let alone anything beyond that. You seem quick to condemn on nothing more than circumstance. The far-left is just as illiberal, regressive, and unjust as the far-right.

            Beware of groupthink. It makes for smooth brains.