How much money you have is not irrelevant at all, at least not to me. It's the same reason I would tell a friend it was bad if they stole mom-and-pop store but wouldn't care about stealing from Wal-Mart (not to compare Minecraft as the Wal-Mart of games or something, but solely in terms of profit, it's up there). We're talking morality here, not legality, so you have to accept it's subjective and not everyone shares your opinion / viewpoint. Or mine.
I didn't know that but I can guarantee you that all the Microsoft stockholders are vastly more wealthy than I am.
The Morality of a situation should not be discriminatory in this fashion. This approach is merely attempting to dehumanize the victim(s)- eg, "it's just a faceless megacorp!". Remember when "It's just black people!" Was basically the moral argument used to justify the ownership of human beings as property? Discriminatory exceptions applied to concrete moral situations is done by people who wish to discriminate in order to prevent cognitive dissonance. These wildly atrophied moral perspectives are effectively born of entitlement. It's the same reasoning that would apply if a person stole a car and then justified it because the person that they stole it from owned 5 cars and didn't need it, and the thief wanted a car and couldn't afford one, so they deserved it more. You cannot justify a moral choice based on the impact you think it will have weighed against your own entitlement. This sort of logic would be capable of justifying murder because you think the person you killed was crazy and was sure to kill more people than you.
If your moral framework is inconsistent with society's, you are a sociopath.
The Morality of a situation should not be discriminatory in this fashion. This approach is merely attempting to dehumanize the victim(s)- eg, "it's just a faceless megacorp!". Remember when "It's just black people!" Was basically the moral argument used to justify the ownership of human beings as property? Discriminatory exceptions applied to concrete moral situations is done by people who wish to discriminate in order to prevent cognitive dissonance. These wildly atrophied moral perspectives are effectively born of entitlement. It's the same reasoning that would apply if a person stole a car and then justified it because the person that they stole it from owned 5 cars and didn't need it, and the thief wanted a car and couldn't afford one, so they deserved it more. You cannot justify a moral choice based on the impact you think it will have weighed against your own entitlement. This sort of logic would be capable of justifying murder because you think the person you killed was crazy and was sure to kill more people than you.
If your moral framework is inconsistent with society's, you are a sociopath.
Owning or murdering human beings is not equatable to owning, pirating, or stealing property in my eyes. However the reason some people think or thought of other people that way comes back to my point: morality is subjective from one society / culture, it evolves and changes over time, and in realizing that it seems logical to evaluate the world from a personal standpoint rather than accepting society's morals simply because they're commonly held. By your logic, abolitionists during the height of slavery were sociopaths because their moral framework was inconsistent with southern king-cotton society.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe Morality of a situation should not be discriminatory in this fashion. This approach is merely attempting to dehumanize the victim(s)- eg, "it's just a faceless megacorp!". Remember when "It's just black people!" Was basically the moral argument used to justify the ownership of human beings as property? Discriminatory exceptions applied to concrete moral situations is done by people who wish to discriminate in order to prevent cognitive dissonance. These wildly atrophied moral perspectives are effectively born of entitlement. It's the same reasoning that would apply if a person stole a car and then justified it because the person that they stole it from owned 5 cars and didn't need it, and the thief wanted a car and couldn't afford one, so they deserved it more. You cannot justify a moral choice based on the impact you think it will have weighed against your own entitlement. This sort of logic would be capable of justifying murder because you think the person you killed was crazy and was sure to kill more people than you.
If your moral framework is inconsistent with society's, you are a sociopath.
Owning or murdering human beings is not equatable to owning, pirating, or stealing property in my eyes. However the reason some people think or thought of other people that way comes back to my point: morality is subjective from one society / culture, it evolves and changes over time, and in realizing that it seems logical to evaluate the world from a personal standpoint rather than accepting society's morals simply because they're commonly held. By your logic, abolitionists during the height of slavery were sociopaths because their moral framework was inconsistent with southern king-cotton society.