• blarghly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    Morally better? I mean, I think so - wanting to stay out of a conflict, to me, seems more morally defensible than actively supporting the bad side. It isn’t the perfect moral position, but I think it is better.

    More likely on a factual basis? Yes. Absolutely.

    • forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Semantics. That’s what this seems to boil down to.

      And, no, they did not “stay out of a conflict” by capitulating (in advance even) to Zionists’ apartheid views of the world.

      • blarghly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        I mean, this is literally the basis of the trolley problem, and the divergence of several major schools of moral thought.

        • forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Umm. No. No offense, but that’s patently ridiculous.

          A corporation chose a distasteful policy to avoid the possibility of losing profits due to negative press. There are no lives at risk. The only risk is “brr! line must go up”

          To equate such morally detestable behavior to minimizing actual suffering and loss is bizarre and nonsensical at best. At worst, it’s nothing more than helping whitewash the vile and disgusting crimes of an apartheid warmongering regime.

          There is no nuance here. They capitulated to genocidal bigotry to maximize profits.