3 ms·
>>Not very realistic for people who need to put food on the table and where the evil vs non evil is not that clear. Evil vs. non-evil being not that clear is n
by enraged_camel 7y ago
>>Not very realistic for people who need to put food on the table and where the evil vs non evil is not that clear.
Evil vs. non-evil being not that clear is not a problem. That's why we have the court system: to sort those types of things out.
As for "needing to put food on the table", how far are you willing to take that logic? It seems you could use it to justify virtually any behavior, as long as you get paid doing it.
- andreilys 7y agoI don’t think the court system is a panacea for solving moral dilemmas. Especially in tech where things move much quicker than our laws can keep up with.
- Supermancho 7y ago> Evil vs. non-evil being not that clear is not a problem. Evil isnt the same as immoral, excepting a subjective interpretation of equivalence. Whats worse is a lack of standardization (or even distinction) between terminology to describe behaviors (eg pernicious, evil, immoral, corrupt, dangerous, et al). What is evil to you is certainly not the same as what is evil to me...much less how a legal doctrine is worded. It is a HUGE problem that people dont agree on what constitutes undesired action.