5 ms·

Are you kidding? It is rare for someone to deliberately break the law and also be ethically upright. I'm saying that he is not obviously compromised. His murder

Are you kidding? It is rare for someone to deliberately break the law and also be ethically upright. I'm saying that he is not obviously compromised. His murderer on the other hand apparently is. You can imagine a world in which murdering someone you have no connection to, based on a bunch of BS, is ethical. But civilized people don't think that way. If you don't like the way insurance is done, the civilized thing to do is to lobby for better regulations or something, not go on a killing spree. The justice system generally doesn't tolerate revenge, even when the average person might feel it justified. If someone murdered your child in cold blood right in front of you, you don't get a free pass to go out and lynch them. Civilized people know this is necessary to keep innocent people safe and ensure some kind of consistency in outcomes. How much less justified is "revenge" like this case, where there is no connection between the attacker and the victim, the perceived offense is abstract and arguable, and taking the guy out does essentially nothing to make the world a better place?

soulofmischief 2y ago
> It is rare for someone to deliberately break the law and also be ethically upright Strawman. Your goal is to prove that there is full alignment between ethics and law in our current system. If there isn't, then we cannot use one's adherence to the law as an indicator of their ethical standing. The Holocaust was legal once. Harboring Jewish political refugees was not. The Palestinian genocide is legal now (according to the US, not the ICC). Speaking out about it at univerities is met with extreme police action. Slavery used to be widespread in the West, and freeing/harboring escaped slaves would land you in prison or a grave. > The justice system generally doesn't tolerate revenge That's an idealistic take. The reality is that the justice system is frequently used to make examples out of political dissidents. This has been true for millennia. My patron saint, Joan of Arc, was burned to the stake for essentially wearing pants. Are you going to sit here and try to tell me that burning a 17 year old at the stake for not being "womanlike" is ethical?
- myvoiceismypass 2y ago
  The person you are responding to seems like a hall monitor that might have reported “the coloreds” for using the “wrong” water fountain 60 years ago.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    Intentionally/ostensibly mistaking the legal system for a system of ethics is such a colossal red flag that someone is willing to allow the exploitation of innocent people in order to improve or protect the quality of their own life. You would think on a forum called Hacker News that people here would be more sensitive to how Corpgov warps society's perception of political dissidents, given the history of our own kind.
    - maeil 2y ago
      You should post this higher up . It's the most succinct way I've seen anyone put it across the many threads on here with hundreds of comments, most of which I read.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Most political dissidents don't kill anyone. There's no indication that this guy tried to do anything within the system to effect positive change. How would you feel if a tech company CEO was murdered because someone's life was wrecked by automation? Nearly any business or government official could be targetted on the basis of such ridiculous self-righteous vigilantism. It's the kind of rationale that leads to political purges, lynchings, and even mass murder. We have legal systems in place to protect everyone from the tyranny of mob rule and other forms of uncivilized behavior.
      - soulofmischief 2y ago
        What happens if mob rule becomes the last possible means of enacting meaningful change?
        wakawaka28 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >Your goal is to prove that there is full alignment between ethics and law in our current system. If there isn't, then we cannot use one's adherence to the law as an indicator of their ethical standing. This is the real straw man. Have you ever heard of a generalization? Of course we can and do use adherence to the laws of the land as an indicator of general moral character. They rarely deviate far from the moral demands of society, and are in fact the only rules that we all have in common with our compatriots. >That's an idealistic take. The reality is that the justice system is frequently used to make examples out of political dissidents. That has nothing to do with vigilantism, and in our country dissidents are almost never murdered like this. >Are you going to sit here and try to tell me that burning a 17 year old at the stake for not being "womanlike" is ethical? I think notions of what is ethical change over time, and so do the laws. Your example is way off topic and misses the point. This guy was a boring bureaucrat who was probably doing his best to run an upstanding business that inherently pisses people off sometimes. You can't be a terribly evil person in modern times without breaking some laws. There is no way to see this random act of violence as "eye for an eye" no matter how much you hate insurance companies. There is no equivalence between walking up to someone unprovoked and shooting them dead versus making necessary financial decisions that might give people vaguely worse health care. Even if you could calculate that a specific change in policy that this CEO did result in some deaths, the nature of the business makes such things inevitable (short of gross negligence or evident malice for the customers). It certainly isn't as contemptible as armed robbery, murder, felony theft, or burning someone alive for bad fashion.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    > This is the real straw man. Have you ever heard of a generalization? Of course we can and do use adherence to the laws of the land as an indicator of general moral character. The irony of claiming that the fundamental principle of my argument is a straw man and then presenting a new straw man directly after. Who said anything about morals? We're talking about ethics. Do you know the difference? Society does not have moral demands, it has one or more ethical consensus. Please learn the difference between the two before trying to argue with authority on them. > in our country dissidents are almost never murdered like this What are you talking about? I was talking about domestic smear and ruination campaigns on a slew of political dissidents from the past such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcom X, Timothy Leary, etc... COINTELPRO? > There is no equivalence between walking up to someone unprovoked and shooting them dead versus making necessary financial decisions that might give people vaguely worse health care This sentence does a lot of hand-waving. Vaguely, indeed. I think, if you look for it, you will find the quantification you're looking for. The difference is one act of direct violence vs tens of millions of every day acts of indirect violence, in a system where the class perpetrating the latter acts of violence continually gain the upper hand incrementally over time, like a political ratchet. Our forefathers would have revolted over much, much less than we put up with today.
myvoiceismypass 2y ago
> It is rare for someone to deliberately break the law and also be ethically upright. I’m laughing from the back of the bus on this one. I mean if I sat in the front that might not be allowed, it might be breaking the law. OMG.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law." - Martin Luther King, Jr. This quote is painted onto one of my lockboxes and I have read and internalized it daily for over a decade now. Such a powerful sentiment, and I wholly agree. In my pursuit of accountability of law, I have come to understand just how much I respect the importance of law, as an anarchist.
  - maeil 2y ago
    Again very well put - do you have a Bluesky or anything to follow?
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      https://bluesky.cosmo.lol https://bluesky.cosmo.lol Thank you for the kind words. Adding them to the pile of inspiration to finally start blogging. I'll be on the lookout for your account. Currently my bluesky feed is garbage and I need to train the algorithm.

soulofmischief 2y ago

> It is rare for someone to deliberately break the law and also be ethically upright Strawman. Your goal is to prove that there is full alignment between ethics and law in our current system. If there isn't, then we cannot use one's adherence to the law as an indicator of their ethical standing. The Holocaust was legal once. Harboring Jewish political refugees was not. The Palestinian genocide is legal now (according to the US, not the ICC). Speaking out about it at univerities is met with extreme police action. Slavery used to be widespread in the West, and freeing/harboring escaped slaves would land you in prison or a grave. > The justice system generally doesn't tolerate revenge That's an idealistic take. The reality is that the justice system is frequently used to make examples out of political dissidents. This has been true for millennia. My patron saint, Joan of Arc, was burned to the stake for essentially wearing pants. Are you going to sit here and try to tell me that burning a 17 year old at the stake for not being "womanlike" is ethical?

myvoiceismypass 2y ago
The person you are responding to seems like a hall monitor that might have reported “the coloreds” for using the “wrong” water fountain 60 years ago.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  Intentionally/ostensibly mistaking the legal system for a system of ethics is such a colossal red flag that someone is willing to allow the exploitation of innocent people in order to improve or protect the quality of their own life. You would think on a forum called Hacker News that people here would be more sensitive to how Corpgov warps society's perception of political dissidents, given the history of our own kind.
  - maeil 2y ago
    You should post this higher up . It's the most succinct way I've seen anyone put it across the many threads on here with hundreds of comments, most of which I read.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Most political dissidents don't kill anyone. There's no indication that this guy tried to do anything within the system to effect positive change. How would you feel if a tech company CEO was murdered because someone's life was wrecked by automation? Nearly any business or government official could be targetted on the basis of such ridiculous self-righteous vigilantism. It's the kind of rationale that leads to political purges, lynchings, and even mass murder. We have legal systems in place to protect everyone from the tyranny of mob rule and other forms of uncivilized behavior.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      What happens if mob rule becomes the last possible means of enacting meaningful change?
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
wakawaka28 2y ago
>Your goal is to prove that there is full alignment between ethics and law in our current system. If there isn't, then we cannot use one's adherence to the law as an indicator of their ethical standing. This is the real straw man. Have you ever heard of a generalization? Of course we can and do use adherence to the laws of the land as an indicator of general moral character. They rarely deviate far from the moral demands of society, and are in fact the only rules that we all have in common with our compatriots. >That's an idealistic take. The reality is that the justice system is frequently used to make examples out of political dissidents. That has nothing to do with vigilantism, and in our country dissidents are almost never murdered like this. >Are you going to sit here and try to tell me that burning a 17 year old at the stake for not being "womanlike" is ethical? I think notions of what is ethical change over time, and so do the laws. Your example is way off topic and misses the point. This guy was a boring bureaucrat who was probably doing his best to run an upstanding business that inherently pisses people off sometimes. You can't be a terribly evil person in modern times without breaking some laws. There is no way to see this random act of violence as "eye for an eye" no matter how much you hate insurance companies. There is no equivalence between walking up to someone unprovoked and shooting them dead versus making necessary financial decisions that might give people vaguely worse health care. Even if you could calculate that a specific change in policy that this CEO did result in some deaths, the nature of the business makes such things inevitable (short of gross negligence or evident malice for the customers). It certainly isn't as contemptible as armed robbery, murder, felony theft, or burning someone alive for bad fashion.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  > This is the real straw man. Have you ever heard of a generalization? Of course we can and do use adherence to the laws of the land as an indicator of general moral character. The irony of claiming that the fundamental principle of my argument is a straw man and then presenting a new straw man directly after. Who said anything about morals? We're talking about ethics. Do you know the difference? Society does not have moral demands, it has one or more ethical consensus. Please learn the difference between the two before trying to argue with authority on them. > in our country dissidents are almost never murdered like this What are you talking about? I was talking about domestic smear and ruination campaigns on a slew of political dissidents from the past such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcom X, Timothy Leary, etc... COINTELPRO? > There is no equivalence between walking up to someone unprovoked and shooting them dead versus making necessary financial decisions that might give people vaguely worse health care This sentence does a lot of hand-waving. Vaguely, indeed. I think, if you look for it, you will find the quantification you're looking for. The difference is one act of direct violence vs tens of millions of every day acts of indirect violence, in a system where the class perpetrating the latter acts of violence continually gain the upper hand incrementally over time, like a political ratchet. Our forefathers would have revolted over much, much less than we put up with today.

myvoiceismypass 2y ago

> It is rare for someone to deliberately break the law and also be ethically upright. I’m laughing from the back of the bus on this one. I mean if I sat in the front that might not be allowed, it might be breaking the law. OMG.

soulofmischief 2y ago
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law." - Martin Luther King, Jr. This quote is painted onto one of my lockboxes and I have read and internalized it daily for over a decade now. Such a powerful sentiment, and I wholly agree. In my pursuit of accountability of law, I have come to understand just how much I respect the importance of law, as an anarchist.
- maeil 2y ago
  Again very well put - do you have a Bluesky or anything to follow?
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    https://bluesky.cosmo.lol https://bluesky.cosmo.lol Thank you for the kind words. Adding them to the pile of inspiration to finally start blogging. I'll be on the lookout for your account. Currently my bluesky feed is garbage and I need to train the algorithm.