Serious statement: I don't understand the argument that not voting for Harris was the morally correct thing to do, because of Gaza. Why does anyone believe this?
Serious statement: I don't understand the argument that not voting for Harris was the morally correct thing to do, because of Gaza. Why does anyone believe this?
And I'm being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don't understand it. Can someone please "steelman" that argument for me?
You're viewing a single thread.
Morals and ethics are subjective and based on emotions. That's why science doesn't say what's good or bad. I don't think you can prove or disprove this argument. People who are strongly focused on Gaza simply reject views that challenge their own.
Personally, I don't see morals as entirely subjective.
I'd say that 'worst possible misery for everyone' is objectively bad and any attempt to move away from that is better.
its arguable but not without merit. its very much the same as you don’t negotiate with terrorists. honestly its disgusting that we are questioning morals of not endorsing genocide instead of demanding aipac and dnc to be investigated for war crimes and defrauding its members for the 3rd election in a row.
questioning morals of not endorsing genocide
That’s a somewhat skewed lens to view it through, as not everyone agrees that what we’re seeing is a genocide. I definitely don’t think it is. I’m open to hearing arguments to the contrary, but so far, everyone I’ve tried discussing it with either gets emotionally captured or doesn’t argue honestly and in good faith, so the discussion goes nowhere.
i don’t know if i can help someone who is ignoring the obvious here which is being echoed by un and every major humanitarian org. if your just objecting from legal pov rather than moral then maybe go through the case prepared by south africa.
copy pasting some links from earlier discussions below on the moral and intent side of things which is based on the what they are themselves acknowledging or rather bragging.
here is one from their own newspaper: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/reservist-eulogized-for-desire-to-take-revenge-against-gazans-setting-home-on-fire-to-boost-morale/
this pos had already killed someone in westbank in front of his kids and wife before oct 7. anyone really believes idf full of slime like this aren’t murdering civilians even kids the moment they see them ?
here they are openly bragging about murdering pregnant women and kids : https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/israel-condemns-soldiers-t-shirts-depict-shooting-arabs/
another one sourced from their own posts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucfxj-faTWI
this has been ongoing since 1948: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjTxDYtNhno
If you can't make an argument for your view using your own words, then I'm not interested in going any further with this.
👍🏻
Morality is not subjective. It is not (or at least should not) be based on emotions.
Morality is most definitely subjective. Talk to different groups around the globe and you'll find different moral boundaries. The morals posed by Islam differ from christianity, which differ from buddhism, which all differ from nihilistic views, and still further diverge from tribal morals of small secluded tribes of people. While they shouldn't be based on emotion, they do tend to be reactionary and emotional at their outset. And breaking them within any particular group tends to get you strong emotional responses.
Is it moral drugs to children? Think long and hard before you answer.