While Reddit mods and admin try to keep up with the site's "no violence" terms of use, Facebook and LinkedIn is reacting with tens of thousands of laughing emojis.
According to Piaget, most children go through three stages of ethical behavior. The first one is rule-based (daddy said so), the second one is based on opposition, the third one takes the context into account to emit a sensible ethical judgment.
Of course, a lot of people never get to stage 2. They stay rule-based all their life. What a pity.
I don’t think it has much to do with ethics in the usual sense. It’s all about tribal allegiance. Facebook and the like are the enemy. Anything that seems to bother the enemy is cheered. There is no thought that laws apply generally. It reminds me of that old internet meme about conservatism. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I think you could make a serious argument that the CEO killing was self-defense. But it’s not going to really change anything. Maybe the successor is less ruthless but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.
An armed society is a polite society. I’ve never believed that. I still don’t. There doesn’t seem to be much of a connection between gun ownership and access to health care.
According to Piaget, most children go through three stages of ethical behavior. The first one is rule-based (daddy said so), the second one is based on opposition, the third one takes the context into account to emit a sensible ethical judgment.
Of course, a lot of people never get to stage 2. They stay rule-based all their life. What a pity.
I don’t think it has much to do with ethics in the usual sense. It’s all about tribal allegiance. Facebook and the like are the enemy. Anything that seems to bother the enemy is cheered. There is no thought that laws apply generally. It reminds me of that old internet meme about conservatism. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I think you could make a serious argument that the CEO killing was self-defense. But it’s not going to really change anything. Maybe the successor is less ruthless but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.
I can think of one disincentive in particular they probably wouldn’t have considered before a couple days ago
deleted by creator
An armed society is a polite society. I’ve never believed that. I still don’t. There doesn’t seem to be much of a connection between gun ownership and access to health care.
I agree. It leads to problems of its own.