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.
Well before donating $1000 to fight gay marriage. This isn’t a deep philosophical debate. You’re trying to muddy a pretty clear cut immorality for suspect reasons
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.
Yeah I’m not interested in debating where you want to draw the line if you think it’s somewhere after donating to fight equal rights. There is a debate to be had but you’re too far gone if you can’t even start there
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.
You really might want to do the same. Someone donates to fight equal rights and you’re now trying to imply condeming them is just as bad as the alt right. You are unwell
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.
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.
Yes, we absolutely can agree. That’s why I made the parallel!
What I can’t agree with is throwing him into the “alt-right” bucket without more information.
Well before donating $1000 to fight gay marriage. This isn’t a deep philosophical debate. You’re trying to muddy a pretty clear cut immorality for suspect reasons
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.
Yeah I’m not interested in debating where you want to draw the line if you think it’s somewhere after donating to fight equal rights. There is a debate to be had but you’re too far gone if you can’t even start there
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.
You really might want to do the same. Someone donates to fight equal rights and you’re now trying to imply condeming them is just as bad as the alt right. You are unwell