2 ms·
What's actually being disingenuous, pointing out the formal route for settling these issues or using terms like "atrocity"? "Is it moral?" is a complex questio
by mellosouls 6y ago
What's actually being disingenuous, pointing out the formal route for settling these issues or using terms like "atrocity"?
"Is it moral?" is a complex question in many cases and that's partly why the courts exist - to help transform those moral questions with subjective answers into actionable objective ones.
- Spivak 6y agoRight but the formal process isn’t the only way to affect change. It would be really weird if you were like “if you don’t like segregation you shouldn’t protest or have sit-ins, just contact your elected representatives.”
- mellosouls 6y agoYes, but the question is about whether or not companies should take stances on these things, and the inevitable moral complexity throws up obstacles given that companies are comprised of individuals with differing opinions. Discussion of that complexity and those obstacles is not helped by simplistic condemnation of those who don't share your (general "your") point of view either on the political topic itself or the more abstract argument of corporate stance generally.
- Spivak 6y agoThere is a good question as to wether it makes sense for companies to take stances on unrelated political issues where I think you can make a strong case about staying out of it. But it doesn’t answer the question of what to do when a company’s actions in the natural course of business will end up taking a stance even if that stance is the status quo.