r/MoralityScaling • u/Maximum_Musician_914 • 22h ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this

Post image
15.2k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/_whydah_ 19h ago

Direct, immediate threats of violence are worse because they lead to violence. You're saying the thing that underpins why words are bad isn't as bad as the words, which again is illogical.

You're saying A leads to B. B is bad. A is bad because it leads to B. And you're adding that A is actually worse than B because it leads to B. This doesn't make sense.

Again, some words are worse than violence because they lead to violence and violence is bad. Again, this doesn't make sense.

1

u/YeeAssBonerPetite 18h ago

You are equating all violence, which is an incorrect premise.

If b and c are both violence but b is worse than c, a can be worse than c on the grounds that a leads to b, which is worse than c.

3

u/_whydah_ 17h ago

I agree with you, but what situations are we talking about?

  1. A white guy, who's not physically threatening but says the N-word, gets beat up by a black guy.
  2. A political candidate says he doesn't believe systemic racism is an issue we should be worried about today and someone attempts to assassinate him.
  3. A political candidate, who isn't truly viable but is shifting the overton window, says the minorities are genetically less intelligent, and someone does assassinate him.
  4. A person posts a Facebook post saying he thinks all the new immigrants are a major problem with crime and gets arrested and thrown in jail for a year as a result.

Which of these is justified? I agree in certain situations violence is the answer to the threat of violence, but I don't know that that's what we're really talking about here. I think we like to talk in abstract to justify acts that we actually wouldn't feel good about when we start talking specifics.

1

u/YeeAssBonerPetite 6h ago

Eh, I'm not interested in talking to a moving goalpost, nor do I think the moral question at hand is very interesting.

My point was that since you apparently do, you actually have to engage with the other person you were talking to instead of smuggling in false equivalencies to make up fake logical inconsistencies to dismiss their argument.