Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
You know, Cliff, for some people, genocide is wrong and should be protested on the basis of it being wrong. Not everyone is a cold-blooded pragmatist. That's not "purity-policing."
|
OK, so we have established that you're not a cold blooded pragmatist. What are you then? What I'm trying to establish is the logic by which this particular act of protest - what the people at the Harris / Walz rally did yesterday - is a good or a right thing to do. What's the end goal of it?
For example, I would think that someone might say that the end goal is to stop the killing of Palestinian children. If that were the goal, the question would obviously be, is this more likely to contribute to fewer dead Palestinian children, or the same amount, or more?
Or alternatively, if that's still too much of a pragmatist lens to view it through, what's the alternative lens? Is there some sort of Kantian duty to say what you believe regardless of whether it hurts people or serves the interests of people who will hurt people? Is this Rorshach at the end of Watchmen yelling "never compromise, even in the face of armageddon"?
I just get the sense that the actual moral underpinnings here haven't been examined because the people chanting are just going "genocide is bad and this makes me feel good because I'm saying genocide is bad", and aren't willing to perform any sort of investigation about what the actual moral underpinnings of their behaviour are or how they should, at a base level, make decisions about how people should act, morally.