Thanks for your thoughts, I think the context you're contributing is fantastic. In both cases, the men have committed a severe injustice to society. And in bot

Thanks for your thoughts, I think the context you're contributing is fantastic. In both cases, the men have committed a severe injustice to society. And in both cases, it seems like they knew better than to do it, but chose to do it, anyways. I don't know if I can absolve Midgley of his moral duties to society in my mind, similar to Freeman. What's a crime is a bit subjective, but different frameworks give us different definitions. Legally, a crime is something that breaks a norm enshrined in law. It is not unlikely that these men have not committed crimes in that sense. Morally, a crime is a deliberate injustice that harms others. With this definition, I think that these men have committed crimes. And in some ways, it would be easier to forgive them, if they would admit to having committed a crime or an injustice. There's a very interesting talk by Elizabeth Bruenig on this [0], and she is much more articulate in philosophy than I will ever be. But I do think that once we can say that "if this person just admitted their wrongs, society could heal", that is some evidence of a moral crime having been committed. > Pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, envy, and gluttony I am not a religious man, but I think this is a good framework to judge the actions of Midgley and Freeman through. I would also add callous, ruthless ambition to that list. Allowing men like this to succeed is certainly nothing to be proud of for us as society. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87EYmV6v_nE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87EYmV6v_nE