3 ms·
I think it's inherent. One is a countervailing force against an historical wrong, with good intentions. The other is deliberately malicious, serves no benefit (
by nerdponx 4y ago
I think it's inherent. One is a countervailing force against an historical wrong, with good intentions. The other is deliberately malicious, serves no benefit (not even an imagined one), and is a direct historical connection to widespread human suffering.
To ignore all of that context and to treat them as exactly equivalent is reduction to absurdity, to the point where debate involving in any matter of subtlety is impossible, from my perspective.
Furthermore, I would encourage you to state the equivalent case on your side. Why should I ignore all context and subtlety, and treat the two scenarios as morally equivalent?
- 3np 4y agoI'm not saying you should. You are entitled to your moral framework. My point is that others can have honest and well-intentioned conclusions that differ from yours. You are not in a position to impose it on the rest of us. See some of the comments of human fungibility and realize that it may be a matter of perspective and that neither of you really are "wrong", "right", "good", "bad" or have an objectively higher ground.