As a member of society If something someone is doing has a negative impact on society in general, it does hurt me so I can go through the legal process or lobby for legal change by all the means legally available to me.
Societies change, and their definition of what harms and helps them changes as well. Aztecs felt human sacrifices were a benefit to their society.
But if I can’t see how it can effect society in general or myself specifically what right have I to even comment beyond general enquiry? It’s interesting to learn new things about people so asking questions is the best way to avoid prejudice which I personally find morally and ethically indefensible.
I actually can’t argue with this at all. I completely agree and see no need to play devil’s advocate here. 😃
I have no objection to Orson Scott Card’s religious beliefs (they aren’t and never will be mine but if he finds comfort and value in them they are his and I would defend his right to keep them) and I liked his books until they were tainted by his bizarre political comments and political lobbying (which he is in his right to do as he would argue that ‘promoting’ homosexuality is bad for society in general of which he is a member) but I as a member and a former customer have every right as the injured party to act against him in the same manner. To protect my freedoms, express my disappointment and disgust to allocate my limited money to exciting new non-bigotted authors.
Well put as well.
Sorry to repeat this is one example of how I balance morals, ethics and the legal rights of protest and withholding of future payment but it’s a good example I think of how my mind makes those sorts of judgements. Dead artists can neither be quizzed or slandered so it’s very difficult to gauge what they thought back then or how they would react in a modern contest. Ghosts can’t change their mind, sadly. They can’t personally benefit from my pocket money either so despite the rumours about HP Lovecraft I have no problem buying his books (especially from a charity shop). Thrift is a moral and ethical practise I approve of.
But here I can argue. You say elsewhere that Christians and Jews and Muslims need to repudiate parts of their texts. I disagree, based on your very statements here. The authors of the Bible lived in the context of their own culture. I do not for one instant believe God dictated the Bible word for word, but rather believe it was the inspiration of men living in their own time. God inspired what was truly a socially advanced society compared to those surrounding Israel, but by today’s standards looks primitive. Instead of judging the Bible and the religions based on it, I would judge today’s people on how they live the principles Christ laid down, which include loving our neighbors. I believe God intended for people to grow in tolerance of each other as their societies were prepared to do so.
So my argument is this: don’t judge past authors by today’s standards.
I hope this is the beginning of more fruitful discussion. I’ve never held any ill will towards you, but merely frustration with what I believe was a serious barrier in our communication.