There are only weeds if you think about anything long enough. Arguing from an existing moral or cultural framework is like fish debating the nature of water. F

There are only weeds if you think about anything long enough. Arguing from an existing moral or cultural framework is like fish debating the nature of water. For example flipping the argument above: under a censorship regime, you can express anything as long as it doesn't threaten social stability such that the greater good is harmed by your words. Under a copyright regime you can't express a copyrighted idea, concept, or fact in any form at all. To me the latter "can't express a copyrighted idea at all" seems a bit weak, but so does "can't express a censored idea at all", since in both cases you can express those ideas, you just pay the consequences. Stepping back my original argument (maybe you consider it too far off into the weeds) is that it's not possible to bootstrap an argument for moral or cultural superiority without appealing to yet another framework like utilitarianism or divine right.