Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post
Legal and moral have two definitions for a reason.
So many people, especially conservative alpha males, are the biggest beta subs to positions of authority. Back the blue, please Mr officer man, step all over me.
Conservatives in general have a hard on for authority. Its why cuckoldry and “the general way their hypocritical ass politics/religious beliefs are” are so common
For the people thst practice law, it is not uncommon to have charges dropped even if the law was very clearly violated, because it just doesn’t feel.right to penalize them.
E.g., a battered spouse kills their partner or a parent is caught stealing baby formula in small amounts. Such cases regularly get thrown out
That’s right, OP, the law doesn’t define ethical behavior – this community’s rules do. Thank you for trying to find the artist; five ethics points have been credited to your account, which can be spent to pay down your sin points at any participating location.
How many points does it take to escape this hell?
Your current amount +1. Always out of reach
I recently started going to a course related to law at university. Its aimed at people not studying law, and the first thing it started with was clarifying that law is not morality.
This was quite interesting to me, since the course’s topic (laws about digitalization) has nothing to do with morality. So law != morality is obviously something the courses organisers thought to be a very important thing about law.
So I think the professionals are well aware of it, and anyone using law as a morality is either deliberately choosing it to ignore problems they’d have in a proper moral system, or not well educated on law.
Powerful people often make laws to serve themselves and it’s very important to hide that reality from the public.
Such lawful, much ethics, very wow
If the nation is truly democratic, then yes, though a caveat is that sometimes new edge cases appear that force the laws to change.
You’d be a moron to think you’re more competent and more ethical than the collective will of the people.
So vox populi is always more ethical than any individual according to your philosophy?
Take it a step further: an individual’s reality doesn’t even exist.
The world you see is a model built upon external stimuli but those stimuli are capable of being false or wrong, therefor the only viable method of observing the world outside of the self is via repeated experimentation and verification with peers. I place literally zero value on an individual’s account of anything.
But yes, to answer your question in plain English, I think the only way to achieve the highest amount of satisfaction for the most people while abstaining from harm for all people is via a perfect and equal democracy. Every other method to approach ethics will fail to promote widespread wellbeing while avoiding harm. In fact, if an individual is only concerned with themselves, due to a lack of social contract or other requirement, then they will demonstrably throughout history commit horrible crimes to enrich their own life.
In fact, if an individual is only concerned with themselves, due to a lack of social contract or other requirement, then they will demonstrably throughout history commit horrible crimes to enrich their own life.
Indeed, landlords are quite deplorable. I wonder what the people will do about them?
Mao ZeDong, Trump, Elon Musk, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un/Jong-Il/Il-Sung, Maduro, Bolsanaro, the Kochs, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, etc.
Least coherent list in world history.
lmfao
Willfully ignoring so hard he forgets the context for which the implication stands upon.
No, the implication makes no sense. Mao ZeDong, while he certainly was against killing landlords, quite famously so, still did not prosecute those that did because he understood the pain caused by the existence of the capital class, he lived it after all. Same with Xi, though he’s softer. Maduro also quite famously also went against landlords and other sources of mass suffering. So did Stalin.
Trump is a landlord, Hitler loved the concept of landlords and privatized a large majority of socialist Weimar, the Kochs are rent seekers, Putin is a rent seeker, Bolsanaro, famously is a rent seeker and tried privatizing brazil…
Lumping these individuals together in any list that is not ‘Men who lived’ is as silly as any possible list that includes Eva Braun, Hillary Clinton, and Malala.
The “collective will of the people” is pretty sure that all our earthly thoughts and actions are being judged by a divine being. An idea being popular does not make it right.
A plurality isn’t a perfect democracy, though, is it? A perfect democracy dictates the earth is between 28% and 53% that, 14% managed by a large and expansive indian pantheon, and 32% assorted others. Nobody’s belief is above the rest, that’s what makes it an equal and perfect democracy.
Dog, you sound like you’d be supporting slaveholders in the 1800s because that’s what the majority decided was best. Between that and your Philosophy 101 reply to the other guy I can’t take you seriously.
Representative democracy, which is once again not a true perfect utopian democracy, banned slavery and the slavers attempted to secede from the union and make their own nations as a result, and then the representative democracy went to war in order to free the slaves.
Your ass sounds more like the secessionists, to me.
You’d be a moron to think you’re more competent and more ethical than the collective will of the people.
So you support the maoist executions of landlords right?
Mao was a dictator who killed everyone who opposed him, and millions who didn’t, a seed planted by the equally brutal and evil USSR. Nothing about China then or now is democratic in any way, shape, or form. Fuck off, Red Fascist.
You’ll be shocked to learn then that Mao’s complaint about the cultural revolution was that it gave far too much power to the people and led to excesses. Mao wasn’t directing every people’s tribunal to execute landlords, the people did that because they hated their oppressors and were given the authority to punish them. Mao considered them too radical in the end.
Red fascist revisionists at it again, you gonna flip flop again next week?
Listen I knew who you were and what position you would take before I ever said anything. Idk where you think I’m flip flopping though. I consider the cultural revolution a mistake and I’m not a huge fan of Mao’s policy towards the end of his life. I just think it’s funny how you support the people’s will until the people start killing their oppressors. Makes me think you only support popular consensus until it makes you personally uncomfortable and I think that’s lame.
I don’t even have to read your red fascist comment to know you’re a cuck simping for your big strong leaders.
Beautiful, it brings a tear to the eye.
