- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
We can plot it on 2 axis as a 2x2 grid:
legal & legitimate | illegal & legitimate ---------------------------------------------- legal & illegitimate | illegal & illegitimateDefinitions:
- legal: conforms to the law
- illegal: breaks the law
- legitimate: the right thing to do
- illegitimate: the wrong thing to do (not sure if this translation is correct, but this is what I mean)
Examples:
- legal & legitimate: Doing things which are allowed and fine, both morally and legally. Like crafting things and selling for a fair price.
- illegal & legitimate: Might be as small as crossing the street when the lights are red (although no one is nearby), or as big as rebelling against systemic injustice // 2nd row of OP picture
- legal & illegitimate: Exploiting others, benefitting from negative externalities, though under legal protection. Like the 1st row of OP picture, and things like fossil fuel extraction, colonialism, imperialism
- illegal & illegitimate: Villainous deeds like murder
I learned this idea during a training workshop for social disobedience (climate action, sit-in). Of course we saw ourselves on the legitimate side, partially covered by law, partially breaking it, but ultimately not caring so much about that part due to the perceived legitimateness. Against the fossil fuel industry, which we see as illegitimate, though sadly protected by law.
PS: Not sure if intended, but this sub’s image very much reminds me of the movie SMILE, which might be my all time horror favorite.
I just finished a book this afternoon and this was a huge theme of it. Wonderful book, but hard to recommend. “Wind and truth” by Brandon Sanderson. I love his stuff, but you would need to read around 20 gigantic books to get to this point. Still, worth the effort if you like fantasy.
😄I think you just solved what I should gift my girlfriend for birthday 🤭
Yes, please don’t recommend people jump straight into the 5th book in an entire series of bricks.
Also, anyone talking to that character immediately becomes Super Kami Guru in my head. NAAAALE!
well because law generally serves the powerful
this is a wonderful reminder of the truth
There is a moral imperative to disregard the law when the law does not deliver justice.
Poweful message, this.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Ethics: refer to a set of principles and guidelines that are established by a community, organization, or society to promote responsible and respectful behavior.
Law reflects the ethics of the populace, not the other way around.
“Ethical” is a social construct that’s time-bound based upon the beliefs and actions of the people.
Slavery was ethical, for the population of slavers. The holocaust was ethical, based upon the beliefs of Nazis.
“Ethics” isn’t a guideline, it’s a benchmark.
History is written by the winners and we are all a product of our environment, including our time. If we were born 200 years ago in the US South, we’d be perfectly fine with slavery.
That doesn’t make it right, we have a different perspective here in the present, where we understand (or at least understood) basic human rights, and that black people are, indeed, human.
If we were born 200 years ago in the US South, we’d be perfectly fine with slavery.
This is blatantly false. Lincoln didn’t wake up one day and suddenly think “hey maybe slavery is bad”. Abolitionists had been fighting for centuries.
Abolitionists were a growing minority. Lincoln didn’t just wake up one day and free the slaves…but we are still 18 years away from the 200 year anniversary of the emancipation proclamation.
But society (US society) as a whole accepted slavery as a fact of life.
Just like we accept suicide nets, sweat factories, “inmate labor”, ,Uighur camps, and North Korean “mercenaries” as facts of life today. We don’t want them, we just choose to forget they exist. Through our collective inaction, we passively condone them.
Plenty of individuals oppose them enough to actively avoid supporting them in any way, but they are such an inconsiderable minority of consumers, in the eyes of the corporate lords.
Well, you and the meme creator need to look up how the definitions of “ethics” and “morality” differ. Although the definition of “ethics” that you quoted is already a good start.
Can we please write comments that add something to the discussion?
Morality is that group of norms defined by a group or society at a given moment. Ethics is the study of morality.
The OP didn’t mix up the terms; it was your parent comment. It costs us nothing to not just criticize
That is exactly the type of confidently expressed non-sense that people who (intentionally or not) ignore how the concepts of ethics and morality differ.
“Unless it happens under a Democrat president, then it’s righteous and just!”
-Lemmy
Whoa, democrat? Ive obviously been on lemmy longer than you, but I get the sense that most american lemmings consider democrats right wing fascists, barely distinguishable from republicans.
Yeah I rarely see any real pro Democrat stuff here, certainly not as much as I did reasoned arguments for the lesser of two evils.
Well “here” in this instance is a an anarchist comm in an anarchist instance, so I would fucking hope so 😅
Anarchy is the only moral stance.
Well I meant Lemmy in general - but yeah surely not on this instance!
The genocide of non-human animals for our pleasure is legal.
You sound like the dudes who find a thread about women’s issues and shout “yeah but what about men’s issues!”
You deserve to be heard but can you do it without turning it into whataboutisn.
Do you even know what whataboutism is ?
His post is entirely on point regarding the op. You can agree or disagree with his view of it, but to say that he’s trying to deflect onto something else is myopic.
Unless you think his post is sarcastic and is trying to downplay the topic in the op ? But then that’s just a literacy issue.Bringing up climate change doesn’t relate to the topic at hand
It’s fine to use it supplementally to legality vs morality but not as a standalone argument
Who brought up climate change ?
The person talking about animal genocide
Can you cite where they mentioned that ? Either it’s in another post or they did not. They explicitly talk about genocide, so probably more about animal rights than climate action.
https://lemmy.ca/post/37769505/14075891
Animal rights doesn’t fit genocide because there’s no mass extinction. For instance there’s more cows and chickens today than any other point in history
Climate change fits genocide because there’s mass extinction. Whole ecosystems wiped out so we can drive to the next city
No, it’s serious and I’d disagree, it isn’t on topic there’s a clear implied meaning given recent events.
Does it fall on the fringes of the same reasoning? Yes. However given that reply is structured as a rebuttal in contrast to the post it appears to me to imply a missed issue with hasn’t been addressed despite the discussion of the intended message which would be whataboutism.
Also questioning others comprehension just looks pretty in an “I am very smart way”
I don’t see how it’s a rebuttal. And in my mind he got the same reaction people would give in “those times” when somebody mentioned that slavery or segregation is bad.
“Yeah sure the Holocaust was bad but this is whataboutism, it isn’t on topic, we’re not talking about slavery here” has the same vibe as your post.
Sure I can understand the topic being the USA going fascist mode, but it’s not obvious and the topic of the image is literally “things can be legal and immoral”. Imo (and I hope) that animal rights will be seen some day as the fourth example in this image. Without people getting attention to it, nothing will change. And instead of talking about it, it’s shut down.
He’s not derailing the entire post, he has posted an opinion that goes in the same direction as the op and he’s being chastised because it doesn’t align with your views.
If you just want to discuss authoritarianism more than the moral/ethics aspect of it, you’re welcome to. But to say that this doesn’t have its place here is wrong imho.Btw sorry for the ad hominem, but it’s grand coming from you when you directly compared the guy to an incel because he expressed an opinion. (Plus that section was clearly sarcastic so if you take offense from this… Well…)
You sound like someone from .world… Oh… You are!
can you imagine jumping in instance based discourse instead of trying to defend your position.
What is there to defend? You can see what is happening for yourself at https://watchdominion.org/
You’re the one that has to defend your continued support of abuse of other animals.
franklin’s comments are so typical of his instance 🙄
