I have little use for assessing morality.
Anybody can do whatever they want. And they get whatever they get.
My parent question was more about the reporter's OPSEC. That is, the risks that he's taken.
Anybody can do whatever they want. And they get whatever they get.
My parent question was more about the reporter's OPSEC. That is, the risks that he's taken.
I have little use for assessing the moral opinions of others.
As I wrote recently, stuff that isn't testable isn't worth worrying about.
A given moral rule doesn't change because it's held by you versus someone else. Just like it makes no sense to refuse to answer the question of whether a fruit is an apple because it is in my hand instead of yours.
In other words, by having a moral rule yourself, you implicitly have a moral metarule: a rule about how to choose your moral rules.
Your refusal to answer the question doesn't make sense.
But I also don't judge the moral rules that others hold. That's one of my operating principles. You can't judge without knowing that you're right. And there's no canonical source for that. I do have opinions about how well some moral rules work vs others. But that's not about judging, only assessing workability.