3 ms·

> I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove ones

> I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral. There may exist a moral argument, but it's pretty easy to disprove that argument: In Nazi Germany, this principle would leave one to just leave Nazi Germany, otherwise cooperating with the Nazis. The principle you're proposing would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2.

Supermancho 7y ago
> would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2 That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. Regardless...moral choices are usually pitted against other moral choices and that's part of what shapes our moral "fiber", for lack of better vocabulary. To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. I suppose you're right, but I don't think the assumption that there won't be a mass exodus is a very unreasonable assumption. Many reasonable ethical principles would have prevented the Nazis from even coming into power if everyone in the country applied it. I think if you were in Nazi Germany and as the Third Reich came to power it would be unreasonable to choose an ethical strategy that only works if everyone applies it, since in the moment, everyone was clearly not applying an ethical strategy. We do have the benefit of hindsight here, though. > To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future. Agreed, ethics is very situational, which is why trying to find widely-applicable rules is often a wild goose chase.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Sticking to your principles works on an individual level, you can't generalize to what the effect of that would be on the whole population. There were plenty of 'good' Germans who refused to become part of the madness. Plenty of them ended up just as dead as the victims on the other side of the conflict. And in the end it did not matter much. But one thing is for sure: they kept their conscience clean and that counts for something as well.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > And in the end it did not matter much. I'd have to disagree with you there. I spent time in Israel and in Brooklyn, and I've personally met at least 3 Jews who were alive when I met them because of good Germans/Austrians who broke Nazi law to help them escape. I think HN often concerns itself with whole populations because a lot of what we're talking about is public policy, and policies at large corporations, which do affect large populations. But the fact is that for most people, the ethical choices we get to make only touch a few people at a time.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Fair enough. In the aggregate the effect must have been substantial for you to know three people like that.

Supermancho 7y ago

> would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2 That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. Regardless...moral choices are usually pitted against other moral choices and that's part of what shapes our moral "fiber", for lack of better vocabulary. To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. I suppose you're right, but I don't think the assumption that there won't be a mass exodus is a very unreasonable assumption. Many reasonable ethical principles would have prevented the Nazis from even coming into power if everyone in the country applied it. I think if you were in Nazi Germany and as the Third Reich came to power it would be unreasonable to choose an ethical strategy that only works if everyone applies it, since in the moment, everyone was clearly not applying an ethical strategy. We do have the benefit of hindsight here, though. > To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future. Agreed, ethics is very situational, which is why trying to find widely-applicable rules is often a wild goose chase.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Sticking to your principles works on an individual level, you can't generalize to what the effect of that would be on the whole population. There were plenty of 'good' Germans who refused to become part of the madness. Plenty of them ended up just as dead as the victims on the other side of the conflict. And in the end it did not matter much. But one thing is for sure: they kept their conscience clean and that counts for something as well.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > And in the end it did not matter much. I'd have to disagree with you there. I spent time in Israel and in Brooklyn, and I've personally met at least 3 Jews who were alive when I met them because of good Germans/Austrians who broke Nazi law to help them escape. I think HN often concerns itself with whole populations because a lot of what we're talking about is public policy, and policies at large corporations, which do affect large populations. But the fact is that for most people, the ethical choices we get to make only touch a few people at a time.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Fair enough. In the aggregate the effect must have been substantial for you to know three people like that.