196

16450 readers

1838 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

528

I think it could just be that simple rule... (infosec.pub)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, there are a number of philosophical arguments against this but I think it's an interesting starting point.

A few of the arguments being that it's subjective, it creates a slippery slope, and it steps on first amendment rights of free speech.

I think the biggest question might be "so if we're not tolerating the intolerant, then what are we doing when we're not tolerating them?" Right? Do they get punished? Do they get socially shunned? Also in doing this do we give up on trying to "convert" them or convince them otherwise that they are incorrect in their thinking?

It seems like an interesting thought and I don't think I'd really thought of it that way before. Thanks for your feedback!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think the most important thing to remember is: it is ALWAYS subjective. If you remove an action from its context, you will always arrive at the wrong answer. The most obvious example is punishment. A punishment is supposed to be bad to the punished. It is a negative that is supposed to be skillfully deployed like a hammer strike. The punished can always claim to be receiving a bad thing, because they are receiving a thing that'd normally be bad.

Punishment itself is not immoral no matter how much any specific person is unjustly punished. When analysing morals, you cannot confuse reciprocity or punishment for origination. Sure, there are plenty of situations where a negative punishment only succeeds in adding negative things to the world, but that's why it's a dangerous tool.

Sooo many people confuse axioms of, "do no harm" with, "I am completely against punishment and the concept of police and prison". It's ... sad, really. So many people want to ignore the nuance, but moral axioms are fundamental pivot points, NOT hard and fast rules.