2 ms·

I'm asking whether the popularity of a policy morally justifies it. I guess you think Jim Crow was morally justified. Or to take a contemporary example, for re

I'm asking whether the popularity of a policy morally justifies it. I guess you think Jim Crow was morally justified. Or to take a contemporary example, for reasons I don't understand Indians really seem to dislike Africans. I guess if we get Jim Krishna laws with popular support, you'll favor them also? Better than the capitalism, which has no morals at all outside what society enforces upon it. Yet capitalists view Indians and Africans as having "equal rights and are people too", unlike the protectionists.

coldtea 12y ago
>I'm asking whether the popularity of a policy morally justifies it. I guess you think Jim Crow was morally justified. No, I think "morally justifies it" in the absolute sense (which you use it) is BS, since it assumes some pre-existing morality framework. "Morally justified" only has sense in the "is it acceptable by the moral standards of a society/era". Of course, most people naively only take it to mean "is it acceptable by the standards of OUR society/era", which they consider as some absolute definition of morals. Fact: for the people of time it WAS morally justified. Heck, slave owners themselves were respectable and celebrated members of society. Owning slaves was just what one did if he could, just like for business owners today setting shop in impoverished areas not to offer the same wages as elsewhere but to take advantage of poverty to offer lower wages (as if those people are worth less) is "just what you do".