3 ms·

It's possible to participate in injustice in a multiplicity of implicit, difficult-to-see ways and yet still object to participating in explicit, obvious injust

It's possible to participate in injustice in a multiplicity of implicit, difficult-to-see ways and yet still object to participating in explicit, obvious injustices. Doing so is still far preferable to not objecting to obvious injustices, regardless of what you're up to in your spare time.

peterwwillis 9y ago
I see what you're saying, but you must see the flaw in this logic. This theoretical person objects to the explicit injustice, because it's right in front of them. But then they still do nothing about the implicit injustice, because it's not right in front of them. It is my opinion that most of us in society are well informed enough to know about those implicit injustices. We read about it in the newspaper, or hear about it on TV, or in movies, or from our peers, or leaders. And then, as if by jedi mind-wipe, we just change the channel. In my own humble opinion, this kind of outrage at the explicit is disingenuous. I think it stems from at least a faint idea, a possibility, that this person is complicit, but desperately wants not to be. I think that the way we live our lives proves how much we really care about the injustice. The outrage is just so much theater, and we're both the actors and the audience.
- maxander 9y ago
  Are you saying someone has to either be a paragon of virtue or just give up on ethics altogether? No one is at either extreme. As you pointed out, even wearing clothes makes you complicit in the moral turpitude of pennies-for-the-hour overseas sweatshops. Are you committed enough to justice that you'll go naked the rest of your life? I'm not, I'd I'm wearing several things that I'd assume were made by terribly oppressed people, as I write this. But when I see the military (or police, or whatever) engaging in wanton destruction, should I just say "well, I'm wearing pants, so I guess I can't complain"? That's preposterous.

peterwwillis 9y ago

I see what you're saying, but you must see the flaw in this logic. This theoretical person objects to the explicit injustice, because it's right in front of them. But then they still do nothing about the implicit injustice, because it's not right in front of them. It is my opinion that most of us in society are well informed enough to know about those implicit injustices. We read about it in the newspaper, or hear about it on TV, or in movies, or from our peers, or leaders. And then, as if by jedi mind-wipe, we just change the channel. In my own humble opinion, this kind of outrage at the explicit is disingenuous. I think it stems from at least a faint idea, a possibility, that this person is complicit, but desperately wants not to be. I think that the way we live our lives proves how much we really care about the injustice. The outrage is just so much theater, and we're both the actors and the audience.

maxander 9y ago
Are you saying someone has to either be a paragon of virtue or just give up on ethics altogether? No one is at either extreme. As you pointed out, even wearing clothes makes you complicit in the moral turpitude of pennies-for-the-hour overseas sweatshops. Are you committed enough to justice that you'll go naked the rest of your life? I'm not, I'd I'm wearing several things that I'd assume were made by terribly oppressed people, as I write this. But when I see the military (or police, or whatever) engaging in wanton destruction, should I just say "well, I'm wearing pants, so I guess I can't complain"? That's preposterous.