3 ms·

Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. Good news: I promise I don't endorse those things. I don't think you'

Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. Good news: I promise I don't endorse those things. I don't think you're coming at this from a place of thoughtfulness (it's a tough, broad topic). Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions, it just means that people are correct to resist against things that harm their lives and their children's lives, even if it theoretically makes life easier for their grandchildren (which isn't even clearly true in this case, making my point even more valid). I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own. This can be a really tough point with complicated implications, but it's fundamentally unassailable.

bawolff 5mo ago
> Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. I don't think i'm twisting here in the slightest. Every moral choice involves weighing the harms vs the benefits at some level. Things that are 100% good or 100% bad don't exist in real life. > I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own Ok, as in morally ok? Always? I do not subscribe to the view that it is morally ok for humans to act in their own interests in all cases. Whether something is morally ok to do depends on a lot of factors. There is no blanket, X is always ok. > Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions Typically the term "correct" is an endorsement. It is a value judgement saying someone is behaving in the way you think they should behave. Are you using the term to mean something else? ----- Edit: i read a little too fast. I guess you are more claiming a moral relativism argument that everyone always thinks their own cause is just, not a moral nilihism argument. Personally i've never found moral relativism all that useful because at the end of the day decisions still have to be made, people are still going to be hurt as a result of those decisions. Somehow someone still has to make the choice and they still need some framework to ground their decision in.

bawolff 5mo ago

> Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. I don't think i'm twisting here in the slightest. Every moral choice involves weighing the harms vs the benefits at some level. Things that are 100% good or 100% bad don't exist in real life. > I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own Ok, as in morally ok? Always? I do not subscribe to the view that it is morally ok for humans to act in their own interests in all cases. Whether something is morally ok to do depends on a lot of factors. There is no blanket, X is always ok. > Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions Typically the term "correct" is an endorsement. It is a value judgement saying someone is behaving in the way you think they should behave. Are you using the term to mean something else? ----- Edit: i read a little too fast. I guess you are more claiming a moral relativism argument that everyone always thinks their own cause is just, not a moral nilihism argument. Personally i've never found moral relativism all that useful because at the end of the day decisions still have to be made, people are still going to be hurt as a result of those decisions. Somehow someone still has to make the choice and they still need some framework to ground their decision in.