4 ms·

There are countries in which being gay will still cause you serious trouble. Or not agreeing with the political leadership. We are quite privileged to just ass

There are countries in which being gay will still cause you serious trouble. Or not agreeing with the political leadership. We are quite privileged to just assume that following the law as written (AND interpreted by the judiciary) will mostly work out alright and doesn't cause us moral dilemma. And companies consist of people, too. Is it then all of a sudden morally acceptable to build spying software so your country's leadership can prey on it's political enemies? Or assist in persecuting discriminated groups? You don't have to cite long abolished laws or an industrialized killing machine for pointing that out ;-) though the post is really begging for it.

kiallmacinnes 6y ago
We can all cite harmful laws, does that mean companies (and people) should be free to ignore all law? Should US companies be free to ignore laws related to sanctions because the UAE has made being gay illegal or because political opposition in China could land you in jail? Where do you draw the line? Specifically - for a US company as is being discussed.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > companies (and people) should be free to ignore all law? Yet you continue with your strawmans. Nobody said that. The crucial word in your sentence is "all", with which nobody has agreed here. Of course nobody is above law. But sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, a particular law turns out to be immoral. In that case, and only in that case, it is wrong to follow that particular law, and it is right to do the illegal alternative. If a company is found to have followed an immoral law and performed harmful (but lawful) acts, it is right that society punish that company later (e.g., when the law situation is solved). More so in this case, when the company is overzealous in its application of that immoral law.
  - kiallmacinnes 6y ago
    > Yet you continue with your strawmans. Nobody said that. No, it was rhetorical question. Reading and making an effort to respond to the entirety of the comment would have made that obvious when I specially ask "Where do you draw the line?".
- archi42 6y ago
  Where did I say "all"?

kiallmacinnes 6y ago

We can all cite harmful laws, does that mean companies (and people) should be free to ignore all law? Should US companies be free to ignore laws related to sanctions because the UAE has made being gay illegal or because political opposition in China could land you in jail? Where do you draw the line? Specifically - for a US company as is being discussed.

enriquto 6y ago
> companies (and people) should be free to ignore all law? Yet you continue with your strawmans. Nobody said that. The crucial word in your sentence is "all", with which nobody has agreed here. Of course nobody is above law. But sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, a particular law turns out to be immoral. In that case, and only in that case, it is wrong to follow that particular law, and it is right to do the illegal alternative. If a company is found to have followed an immoral law and performed harmful (but lawful) acts, it is right that society punish that company later (e.g., when the law situation is solved). More so in this case, when the company is overzealous in its application of that immoral law.
- kiallmacinnes 6y ago
  > Yet you continue with your strawmans. Nobody said that. No, it was rhetorical question. Reading and making an effort to respond to the entirety of the comment would have made that obvious when I specially ask "Where do you draw the line?".
archi42 6y ago
Where did I say "all"?