7 ms·

No, it only shows that they essentially have no principles at all, or at least none that they’re willing to lose money over (which is ultimately the same thing)

No, it only shows that they essentially have no principles at all, or at least none that they’re willing to lose money over (which is ultimately the same thing). It’s always useful when someone reveals their true moral fiber, as the NBA has done.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
Why are both the same thing? If it doesn't cost me anything to fight injustice and I don't do it, that is strictly worse than if it doesn't cost me to fight injustice and I do. Suppose the NBA gave the middle finger to Saudi Arabia but cozied up to China, would that be worse than if they cozied up to both? Your stance is wildly illogical.
- filoleg 7y ago
  It isn’t about what they did, it is the justification they gave for doing or not doing it. If they said “we cozied up to China, but didn’t cozy up to SA because it made business sense in the former scenario but not in the latter one”, that would be one thing. But if they said “we cozied up to China because we want to stay out of politics and be neutral” while still not cozying it up to SA and flaunting how morally righteous they were for giving SA the finger, that’s a very different scenario. At best, it is just dishonest and hypocritical.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    You're talking about being strictly global utilitarian in all actions which is completely unworkable when it endangers the actor. Of course, they aren't as hard on China because of money. I don't see why they need to spell it out so as not to appear dishonest — it's so obvious that it can be assumed. That doesn't mean it is better to also not be hard on North Carolina, which is OP's error. There is no moral framework in which appearance of hypocrisy is worse than not helping others.
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      Their actions also go against deontological ethics as well.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Indeed, but not doing anything in both cases is still worse in that system, which is the point. You have to do wild contortions to make doing one fewer good thing better .
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        It's more manipulative and does a better job of revealing their true motives. Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative. In this case, how?
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        A company that does a good deed will draw attention and support away from other companies. If the good deed was done for ethical reasons, then that attention and support will feed further good deeds in the future. If it was done for manipulative reasons, then it dilutes the money going to the more ethical companies. The manipulative company is less likely to do good deeds in the future. It's more likely to ignore opportunities, or to do easier and less meaningful good deeds. In other words, it's not a one-off. There is the same positive effect in the short term, but the long term differs. All of that logic could easily apply to this scenario. For a simpler scenario, if a company does a good deed to apologize for a bad deed, and the good deed is smaller but gets them off the hook, then that's a very clear net negative.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

Why are both the same thing? If it doesn't cost me anything to fight injustice and I don't do it, that is strictly worse than if it doesn't cost me to fight injustice and I do. Suppose the NBA gave the middle finger to Saudi Arabia but cozied up to China, would that be worse than if they cozied up to both? Your stance is wildly illogical.

filoleg 7y ago
It isn’t about what they did, it is the justification they gave for doing or not doing it. If they said “we cozied up to China, but didn’t cozy up to SA because it made business sense in the former scenario but not in the latter one”, that would be one thing. But if they said “we cozied up to China because we want to stay out of politics and be neutral” while still not cozying it up to SA and flaunting how morally righteous they were for giving SA the finger, that’s a very different scenario. At best, it is just dishonest and hypocritical.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  You're talking about being strictly global utilitarian in all actions which is completely unworkable when it endangers the actor. Of course, they aren't as hard on China because of money. I don't see why they need to spell it out so as not to appear dishonest — it's so obvious that it can be assumed. That doesn't mean it is better to also not be hard on North Carolina, which is OP's error. There is no moral framework in which appearance of hypocrisy is worse than not helping others.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    Their actions also go against deontological ethics as well.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      Indeed, but not doing anything in both cases is still worse in that system, which is the point. You have to do wild contortions to make doing one fewer good thing better .
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        It's more manipulative and does a better job of revealing their true motives. Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative. In this case, how?
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        A company that does a good deed will draw attention and support away from other companies. If the good deed was done for ethical reasons, then that attention and support will feed further good deeds in the future. If it was done for manipulative reasons, then it dilutes the money going to the more ethical companies. The manipulative company is less likely to do good deeds in the future. It's more likely to ignore opportunities, or to do easier and less meaningful good deeds. In other words, it's not a one-off. There is the same positive effect in the short term, but the long term differs. All of that logic could easily apply to this scenario. For a simpler scenario, if a company does a good deed to apologize for a bad deed, and the good deed is smaller but gets them off the hook, then that's a very clear net negative.