3 ms·
> Let me rephrase that -- is there a more moral action they could take? This depends on your basic values, but one could definitely argue that doing nothing is
by jshevek 7y ago
> Let me rephrase that -- is there a more moral action they could take?
This depends on your basic values, but one could definitely argue that doing nothing is morally superior to abusing the voting system. Only sometimes do two wrongs make a right, and I'm not convinced this is one of those times.
- kodt 7y agoOk so lets say they do nothing, the business receiving fake negative reviews closes as a result and people lose their jobs. Was that the morally superior choice?
- jshevek 7y agoCherry picking unlikely hypothetical scenarios (this is GR, not yelp) is a bad strategy for making a binary determination of the morality of a choice. When you ask "Was that the morally superior choice", what set of options are you considering? In my prior statement, I simply claimed that it can be argued that doing nothing is morally superior to abusing the voting system.
- 6181F056 7y ago"It can be argued" is a completely vacuous statement. Anything can be argued. Your comparison to Yelp is equally specious because Goodreads is not the endangered party -- it's the author. Given the attacks happening, their livelihood is already threatened. So your hypothetical pacifism re: the sanctity of the voting system only guarantees the attackers will win.