3 ms·

> 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 ethic

> 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
        It depends on what the "meaningful change" actually is. Lots of possible changes are meaningful but not worth killing people over. Not all proposed changes are actually possible. Mobs of people are usually really stupid and bloodthirsty. Look at the 1970 Cambodian coup for example. You don't want to open that Pandora's box unless there is a real urgent emergency or violation of natural rights. If people were as excited about losing weight as they are about some CEO getting shot, we could all have much cheaper insurance and maybe the government could even afford to give us free health care. You should look into what the government pays for and how much they pay for it. It's really eye-opening. The government isn't a magic money machine. If they pay for something, the value is extracted from somewhere in society either in monetary form or through inflation.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  What a stretch. So you're insinuating I'm racist because I don't approve of a guy being gunned down for no good reason in broad daylight by another guy who could have had a bright future, and even been a successful activist for the cause he was allegedly trying to advance. Two lives ruined, two families wrecked, and probably more to come as this is egged on. The comparison of violent vigilantism over what is really a financial issue to a peaceful civil rights movement is so classy. You don't know what you're really supporting, and if things continue in this uncivilized trajectory, you will regret it.
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

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
      It depends on what the "meaningful change" actually is. Lots of possible changes are meaningful but not worth killing people over. Not all proposed changes are actually possible. Mobs of people are usually really stupid and bloodthirsty. Look at the 1970 Cambodian coup for example. You don't want to open that Pandora's box unless there is a real urgent emergency or violation of natural rights. If people were as excited about losing weight as they are about some CEO getting shot, we could all have much cheaper insurance and maybe the government could even afford to give us free health care. You should look into what the government pays for and how much they pay for it. It's really eye-opening. The government isn't a magic money machine. If they pay for something, the value is extracted from somewhere in society either in monetary form or through inflation.
wakawaka28 2y ago
What a stretch. So you're insinuating I'm racist because I don't approve of a guy being gunned down for no good reason in broad daylight by another guy who could have had a bright future, and even been a successful activist for the cause he was allegedly trying to advance. Two lives ruined, two families wrecked, and probably more to come as this is egged on. The comparison of violent vigilantism over what is really a financial issue to a peaceful civil rights movement is so classy. You don't know what you're really supporting, and if things continue in this uncivilized trajectory, you will regret it.

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.