3 ms·
If the only way you can argue for Peter Thiel's actions is to deny moral realism, then, uh, I think we've said all that we need to say on the topic.
by andkon 10y ago
If the only way you can argue for Peter Thiel's actions is to deny moral realism, then, uh, I think we've said all that we need to say on the topic.
- imgabe 10y agoIf the only way you can argue against them is to refer to some rules you made up, I agree. In any event "retribution" is an overly simplistic way of looking at what Thiel did. It could also be interpreted as protecting future victims of Gawker. Suppose someone stabs me, and I live. For whatever reason, they get away and continue to run around stabbing people. If at some point in the future, they attempt to stab someone else and I stop them, killing them in the process, is that killing in retribution or protection? Maybe both. It doesn't really matter so long as we can stop people from getting stabbed.
- zadig 10y agoWhat I find funny about this example is that at first I thought the "it happened" argument was going to be used in defense of the person doing the stabbing. Which, of course, it could.
- imgabe 10y agoWhether anybody thinks people "should" or "shouldn't" get stabbed is irrelevant. People do get stabbed. When it becomes enough of a problem, other people do something to stop it. Gawker went and made a powerful enemy for no good reason. Outing someone who didn't want to be outed helped no one. Thiel used the considerable means at his disposal to ruin Gawker in a way that didn't harm anyone other than the owners of Gawker. Since nobody else really benefited from Gawker's existence it's unsurprising that nobody else really cares if they stop existing. If Gawker had been exposing powerful people doing something illegal or otherwise harmful instead of just being gay or having affairs, they would have had the justice system and the public on their side and they wouldn't have lost the lawsuit.