Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8160058" data-attributes="member: 6704184">That isn't an accurate representation of what I said. Rather, it's, "I knew that a course of action was likely to result in harm, didn't care, and harm resulted. And then I kept engaging in that course of action, lending my effort to covering up my responsibility for the harm rather than mitigating how much harm I do." That is willfully doing harm, even without the second sentence, and it's evil. If you leave your campfire burning in the middle of summer in California's forests, with no one to watch it and no bucket of dirt or other way to put it out, you are morally responsible if it starts a wildfire that burns down a swath of forest, kills people and animals, and destroys whole towns. If you bully lawmakers into passing policies that let you get away with poisoning rivers and water tables, you are morally responsible for the harm that comes from that poisoned water. Other people are also responsible, but that doesn't get you off the hook. The idea that corporations are exempt from such moral responsibility simply because they are profit driven organizations is perhaps the most dangerous bit of nonsense in the modern world.  2 things. First, your reply is a personal attack. You're the guy in change of the damn site, for goodness sake. Second, what I described isn't moral absolutism. A morality based in harm and reasonable expectation that a person knows an action or inaction will lead to harm, isn't absolutist. Absolutism is when someone suggests something like, "XYZ specific action are always evil, and anyone who does them is evil. Period." Saying, willfully bringing harm to others is evil, is just ethical common sense, and inherently allows for nuance in specific cases. hell, my post even alluded to such nuance.</blockquote>

Verification