3 ms·

This is a microcosm of our political environment where when one subjectively determines the weight of harm, they attempt to objectively apply it to others. Sure

This is a microcosm of our political environment where when one subjectively determines the weight of harm, they attempt to objectively apply it to others. Sure, FB does immoral things. But why can't we simply recognize that people disagree about whether harm exists, whether value exists, and what weights are applied to each? This is a really important point. Political movements often attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a differing value system, but that doesn't rile up your base like proclaiming the other side is evil. I should remember this myself :)

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Political movements often attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a differing value system Evil is only meaningful in the context of a value system. Malice is will for things which are evil. Valuing something positively is willing for it to transpire. Valuing something negatively is seeing it as evil. Valuing something positively that others value negatively is, therefore, exactly malice in the context of the others’ value system (it's not wrongly attributed to malice.)