3 ms·
That's up to you. The reason I asked the question is because it's one, based on the comments here, that I think many people weren't asking themselves. And that'
by rjf72 7y ago
That's up to you. The reason I asked the question is because it's one, based on the comments here, that I think many people weren't asking themselves. And that's akin to condemning a man for 'x' without ever asking yourself if 'x' is even wrong.
As it's a moral question, there's not going to be any unambiguous right or wrong answer and we're all going to have different perspectives. One might even argue that you have a moral imperative to take his money for practically any reason so long as you are not directly assisting his other actions, since it means you are taking a chip, regardless of how small, out of the resources he had to carry on with said other actions.
As another example on this topic in Columbia the big drug dealers would frequently use their ill gotten wealth to do positive things such as fund schools for local towns. And these guys were involved in far worse behavior - murdering large numbers of people, often in brutal fashion to send a message. And that was similarly no secret. Should the townspeople have rejected their offer?
- wpietri 7y agoIf your point is that applied morality is complex, I don't think you're saying anything new. But you replied to my point about abusers exploiting the well-meaning and naive. I don't see what bringing up an obvious fact about moral complexity does here, especially since you refuse to engage usefully with your own point. Except of course to confuse the issue. In practice, I don't think I've seen any attempts by Epstein associates to really grapple with the moral balance, to weigh the ends against the means. What I mostly see is them taking the money and either supporting him or dodging the hard questions. There isn't anybody willing to say, "Yeah, I suspected he was a manipulative, sex-trafficking pedophile, but I was cool with it because here's what the world got out of it." There are plenty of good places to discuss moral nuances. But maybe try it in a place where it doesn't derail from holding people accountable for their behavior.
- rjf72 7y agoI'm not "engaging" because I'm not taking any specific position. In my experience debating moral values is about as productive as punching yourself in the face. These are issues that people should come to their own personal conclusions on. But as mentioned the issue I saw here is that many people were seemingly not even considering the underlying moral issue here before racing to condemn. Online 'accountability' often heads directly into the domain of mob mentality. I think if more people stopped to ask 'hey is our outrage even really justified?' that the world be a much nicer place for everybody.
- wpietri 7y agoMorality is inherently social. A person living alone on an island has no need of morality. So I don't think the notion of a strictly personal morality even makes sense. And neither do you, or you wouldn't be here arguing for some very specific moral choices of your own. You claim you're not taking any specific position, but you of course are. Your repeated intervention in the discussion demonstrates that. And your unwillingness to spell out the implications of that position is telling.