Hacker News Reader

Comment by derriz | Hacker News Reader

Moral arguments for me don’t stand alone like a mathematical proof or scientific findings which can be examined as some sort of platonic form.

Morality arguments are social and contextual. That 2+2 is 4 won’t change and captures some sort of eternal truth while what is deemed moral is constantly changing over time and differs across different societies and social groupings.

So morality arguments require and appeal to a particular shared sense of right and wrong. If Chomsky was guilty of sexually abusing children, then I do not share his moral foundation and so his appeals to morality arguments do not convince me.

View on HN

Do you have an example where Chomsky might be right but you disagree with him because of his moral depravity?

Why? There are some of Chomsky’s positions I’m sure I agree with and some I disagree with. What’s the relevance to my point?

If it turns out that Chomsky was sexually abusing children would you start disagreeing with Chomskys positions you agreed previously?

It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with Chomsky on specific points.

It’s about the validity and strength of his arguments. I could continue to agree with Chomsky on some point but now dismissing his argument.

Or if I was undecided about how to judge something in terms of morality, then yes, if Chomsky was proven to have sexually abused trafficked children, I might skip consulting Chomsky on the matter.

To be honest, I don’t know where you’re trying to go with this line. It feels like you think you have some “gotcha” you feel ready to spring and will keep asking these opaque questions until you think you see an opportunity.

Why not just lay out your argument transparently and I can engage?

Or state exactly what it is about my claim that appeals to morality made by immoral people are less convincing than those made by moral people that you disagree with? Forgot about Chomsky - it has nothing specifically to do with him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com