3 ms·

This is dangerous. You are slipping in an assumption that the moral character of people is well reflected by the social institutions they belong to. Nothing I

This is dangerous. You are slipping in an assumption that the moral character of people is well reflected by the social institutions they belong to. Nothing I have seen about the world, or read about history gives the slightest hint favouring that assumption. Worse, you are implying that people should be judged by what social context they exist in. It seems far more likely that good people and bad people can end up in all sorts of situtions.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> You are slipping in an assumption that the moral character of people is well reflected by the social institutions they belong to. Nothing I have seen about the world, or read about history gives the slightest hint favouring that assumption. Do you think that still holds when you only consider those cases that people actually realistically had control over, and also exclude those who intentionally worked to subvert the institution they were nominally a part of? After all, being the member of a totalitarian state that doesn't allow you to leave the country is a bit of a different thing than signing an employment contract in the US, and I highly suspect that the people we are talking about here also are not in the class of people intentionally subverting the companies they work in, because chances are friends who care about this would know. > Worse, you are implying that people should be judged by what social context they exist in. It seems far more likely that good people and bad people can end up in all sorts of situtions. Well, not as black and white as you make it out to be, that's just a simplification for the sake of being able to discuss things at all. But I absolutely think that social context is significantly correlated with how people should be judged, yes. Also, what exactly do you mean by "moral character"? I don't think it's a particularly well-defined term.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> You are slipping in an assumption that the moral character of people is well reflected by the social institutions they belong to. Nothing I have seen about the world, or read about history gives the slightest hint favouring that assumption. Do you think that still holds when you only consider those cases that people actually realistically had control over, and also exclude those who intentionally worked to subvert the institution they were nominally a part of? After all, being the member of a totalitarian state that doesn't allow you to leave the country is a bit of a different thing than signing an employment contract in the US, and I highly suspect that the people we are talking about here also are not in the class of people intentionally subverting the companies they work in, because chances are friends who care about this would know. > Worse, you are implying that people should be judged by what social context they exist in. It seems far more likely that good people and bad people can end up in all sorts of situtions. Well, not as black and white as you make it out to be, that's just a simplification for the sake of being able to discuss things at all. But I absolutely think that social context is significantly correlated with how people should be judged, yes. Also, what exactly do you mean by "moral character"? I don't think it's a particularly well-defined term.