• vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    this assumes a moral authority, which can be dangerous

    This barely even means anything. What do you really mean?

    • kest@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      moral authority, or rather thinking you have the moral right to do something is the cause of all strive. Was the cause of the religious wars… even Hitler thought he had a “moral duty” to eradicate people from the gene pool to make a better society. You can’t assume moral authority; you will end up hurting people. It happens again and again, everything from an abusive spouse who thinks his wife is bad quality X and should be beat into a better person, to parents abusing their kids to have them “learn” otherwise they won’t be tough enough for the world, to the horrible recidivism rate in countries where prisoners are considered subhuman because they’re “immoral”, to every serial killer feeling justified to torture people in their messed up fabric of how they think the world works. Morality is a trojan horse for criminality. It treats others as subhuman, abdicates their ability to choose, and then causes arrogance in the “ruling elite” which then ends in slaughter of their own people, starting with the minorities until society realizes, “wait, how did we get here?”

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is more text, I’ll give you that, but it’s still not clear how it relates to professional ethics codes of journalists.

        Surely you are not trying to say that professional ethics codes in and of themselves lead to wife beating, serial murder, prison abuse and genocide?