I mean this dynamic is not only found on the right. Many Lemmings seem to be caught up in the same mode of thinking.
I hope we can all agree that people suffering and dying, in isolation, is bad. Obviously the implications of a death can vary widely and that’s where things get complicated. But the basic moral principle should be widely shared.
I think the current moral question society is wrestling with is along those lines. Something to the effect of, how removed from the outcome of a decision does one need to be in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for that outcome? Essentially, why is it OK for a CEO or a President to cause thousands of deaths by signing a piece of paper but not OK for that same person to go out and shoot those thousand people one at a time? The outcome is the same there’s just more obfuscation along the way in the first case. The greed motivation seems to be the difference. The CEO isn’t usually killing people because he wants them dead, he’s doing it because he views them as acceptable casualties in his quest to make money.
Charlie Kirk is a great example of that phenomenon as well. He may not have directly shot anybody but he undoubtedly influenced people towards doing exactly that. To what degree should he bear the blame for their actions? He certainly didn’t do it in complete ignorance of the possibility that people could die but does the separation from the actual crime make his actions morally acceptable? Does it make any difference if his motivations were money and power as opposed to bigotry and hatred?
To me, diffuse harm is very obviously just as bad, but it is more difficult to quantify and fix. Furthermore, these types of harms are not comparable to a mass shooter where the danger is ended by killing or capturing them. The harms are produced by systems. Does killing Charlie Kirk end the harms he committed or will the billionaires propping him up simply replace him with another identical mouthpiece?
Individual assassinations don’t usually solve systemic problems.
True! It’s not unique to the right, but I do think it shows up there a lot. It’s a very Objective view of the world (there is a Right and Wrong, outside of culture), and there’s more objectivity on the right, and more subjectivity on the left. Not universally, but more.
I think the way this manifests on the left is actually pretty different, perhaps even the opposite, to the way it shows up on at least the current right.
The current right has Good People who can do no Bad, no matter how much wrong they do. So they can get away with a lot, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, and their base will support them anyway because they’re still a Good Person.
Whereas on the left we’re maybe a bit quick to dismiss someone outright, or lose the forest for the trees, because we think of ourselves as the side of Morality. So there can be a person who does a lot of good, and seems like a Good Person, and then one thing can come out about them, maybe not even a substantiated thing. Maybe something they did 25 years ago, that they would never do today, and in an instant everyone has flipped on them. You see, people are either Good People or Bad People, and if you’ve done a Bad thing, you must not have been a Good Person afterall! You were a Bad Person in disguise! Thank goodness we caught you and ousted you, so we can continue to be the side of only Good People.
Shouldn’t we be the side of spectrums? Of forgiveness? Of growth, and healing, and learning, and rehabilitation? Grace and second chances?
I mean, don’t get fooled over and over by the same grifter, but there could at least be some room to say oops, sorry, and then do better going forwards.
I mean this dynamic is not only found on the right. Many Lemmings seem to be caught up in the same mode of thinking.
I hope we can all agree that people suffering and dying, in isolation, is bad. Obviously the implications of a death can vary widely and that’s where things get complicated. But the basic moral principle should be widely shared.
I think the current moral question society is wrestling with is along those lines. Something to the effect of, how removed from the outcome of a decision does one need to be in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for that outcome? Essentially, why is it OK for a CEO or a President to cause thousands of deaths by signing a piece of paper but not OK for that same person to go out and shoot those thousand people one at a time? The outcome is the same there’s just more obfuscation along the way in the first case. The greed motivation seems to be the difference. The CEO isn’t usually killing people because he wants them dead, he’s doing it because he views them as acceptable casualties in his quest to make money.
Charlie Kirk is a great example of that phenomenon as well. He may not have directly shot anybody but he undoubtedly influenced people towards doing exactly that. To what degree should he bear the blame for their actions? He certainly didn’t do it in complete ignorance of the possibility that people could die but does the separation from the actual crime make his actions morally acceptable? Does it make any difference if his motivations were money and power as opposed to bigotry and hatred?
To me, diffuse harm is very obviously just as bad, but it is more difficult to quantify and fix. Furthermore, these types of harms are not comparable to a mass shooter where the danger is ended by killing or capturing them. The harms are produced by systems. Does killing Charlie Kirk end the harms he committed or will the billionaires propping him up simply replace him with another identical mouthpiece?
Individual assassinations don’t usually solve systemic problems.
True! It’s not unique to the right, but I do think it shows up there a lot. It’s a very Objective view of the world (there is a Right and Wrong, outside of culture), and there’s more objectivity on the right, and more subjectivity on the left. Not universally, but more.
I think the way this manifests on the left is actually pretty different, perhaps even the opposite, to the way it shows up on at least the current right.
The current right has Good People who can do no Bad, no matter how much wrong they do. So they can get away with a lot, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, and their base will support them anyway because they’re still a Good Person.
Whereas on the left we’re maybe a bit quick to dismiss someone outright, or lose the forest for the trees, because we think of ourselves as the side of Morality. So there can be a person who does a lot of good, and seems like a Good Person, and then one thing can come out about them, maybe not even a substantiated thing. Maybe something they did 25 years ago, that they would never do today, and in an instant everyone has flipped on them. You see, people are either Good People or Bad People, and if you’ve done a Bad thing, you must not have been a Good Person afterall! You were a Bad Person in disguise! Thank goodness we caught you and ousted you, so we can continue to be the side of only Good People.
Shouldn’t we be the side of spectrums? Of forgiveness? Of growth, and healing, and learning, and rehabilitation? Grace and second chances?
I mean, don’t get fooled over and over by the same grifter, but there could at least be some room to say oops, sorry, and then do better going forwards.
Great points, I think you’re spot on with the differences.