4 ms·

The 'oppressed' we are talking about are meth dealers who have spread the drug such that up to 30% of those who live in slums have become addicts. Entire commun

by meric 10y ago

The 'oppressed' we are talking about are meth dealers who have spread the drug such that up to 30% of those who live in slums have become addicts. Entire communities destroyed. Filipinos follow your exact same logic, decide the behaviour of these drug dealers is unjustified and must be stopped at all costs. Who am I to judge whether killing these drug dealers is right, or is not right? Meth has not affected my family but it has destroyed theirs! And likewise, if you are the general of a foreign army and do decide to invade them to stop it, who am I to judge you for trying to prevent death of innocents? In both cases I will observe, and if you are in my community, which you are, I will give you my perspective and my advice, but I will never intervene. I will not support or intervene Filipinos efforts to save their communities, nor your hypothetical efforts to invade them. It is my business to advise only so much because we and other commenters are in the same community. I think that is our moral difference and if you would judge me for it, I will accept it graciously.

int_19h 10y ago
It appears that you have completely missed the point of all the complaints. The oppressed that we're talking about are not drug dealres - they're people accused of being drug dealers, which may be right or wrong, but either way we will never know if they're just murdered in cold blood without having their time in the court of law. Rule of law exists for a reason, and part of that reason is to protect the innocent who inevitably end up targeted by vigilantes in witch hunts. In many cases, the witch hunts spiral out of control to such an extent that most people are innocent (of what they're accused of, anyway), simply because it becomes a cheap and easy way to settle scores. Another point that I'd like to make, is that you talk about communities. But, who draws the lines? There's a community of Filipinos, true - but who decides who is the member, and does being a member of that community automatically excludes one from other communities? I would dare say that it does not; and if so, why should that other membership be ignored? I mean, ultimately, we are all members of one community called "people", spanning the entire globe; everything else is a subdivision of that. So, if it's common membership that you believe to give the moral justification to judge, and possibly intervene, then it is membership in that community that I will claim as my justification to do so.
- meric 10y ago
  For me, the membership of the community means you can talk to them directly. And even if we'e in the same community, I will never judge, and never intervene, unless you're directly harming another member of my community. I do not talk to the people in the slums, we're not in the same community. I talk to you, we're in the same one. I hold no judgement on what's happening in Philippines, just as I cannot think of intervening in U.S., or judge U.S. citizens, where prisons where millions, a significant fraction of them innocent, are incarcerated in horrific conditions I could never imagine myself to be in. Rule of law is an invention, sometimes it has force, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it changes. That is my moral framework.

by meric 10y ago

int_19h 10y ago

It appears that you have completely missed the point of all the complaints. The oppressed that we're talking about are not drug dealres - they're people accused of being drug dealers, which may be right or wrong, but either way we will never know if they're just murdered in cold blood without having their time in the court of law. Rule of law exists for a reason, and part of that reason is to protect the innocent who inevitably end up targeted by vigilantes in witch hunts. In many cases, the witch hunts spiral out of control to such an extent that most people are innocent (of what they're accused of, anyway), simply because it becomes a cheap and easy way to settle scores. Another point that I'd like to make, is that you talk about communities. But, who draws the lines? There's a community of Filipinos, true - but who decides who is the member, and does being a member of that community automatically excludes one from other communities? I would dare say that it does not; and if so, why should that other membership be ignored? I mean, ultimately, we are all members of one community called "people", spanning the entire globe; everything else is a subdivision of that. So, if it's common membership that you believe to give the moral justification to judge, and possibly intervene, then it is membership in that community that I will claim as my justification to do so.

meric 10y ago
For me, the membership of the community means you can talk to them directly. And even if we'e in the same community, I will never judge, and never intervene, unless you're directly harming another member of my community. I do not talk to the people in the slums, we're not in the same community. I talk to you, we're in the same one. I hold no judgement on what's happening in Philippines, just as I cannot think of intervening in U.S., or judge U.S. citizens, where prisons where millions, a significant fraction of them innocent, are incarcerated in horrific conditions I could never imagine myself to be in. Rule of law is an invention, sometimes it has force, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it changes. That is my moral framework.