4 ms·
Well, we completely disagree; if you voluntarily employed such a person, I'd consider you complicit in his behavior and just as reprehensible as him. That's no
by gnaritas 10y ago
Well, we completely disagree; if you voluntarily employed such a person, I'd consider you complicit in his behavior and just as reprehensible as him. That's not black and white thinking, that's moral reasoning. If fact views like yours are the problem here, you're basic point is "but he does good work".
- js8 10y agoYes, we disagree. The problem with this, in my view, very extreme black-and-white moral thinking, is that if everybody would strictly follow it we would very quickly run out of people who are not reprehensible. I simply think there needs to be a balance, and somebody who is not actively punishing others (even if he actually thinks they are immoral) is not on the same level of reprehensible as them. That's why human morality has also a component of forgiveness.
- gnaritas 10y agoIt's not extreme, it's normal and healthy to exclude abusive people from groups. Your position, keeping them, is the extreme one and it's abusive to those whom he abuses. You're concerned about a slippery slope that doesn't exist, your position is based on fear of a possible bad future rather than the reality of an abusive person actively hurting people in the present. If you support someone by continuing to employ them, when they are known to act this way, you are complicit in their abuse. Forgiveness applies after someone is accountable for and have changed their behavior; it has no relevance here.