[mirimir]

By "feel", I meant more what you might feel justified in doing about it. The key "moral rule" for me is to only mess with people who have messed with me. I don't get into third-party stuff, and I have little sympathy for those who do.

[BHSPitMonkey]

So what you're saying is, it would be moral for this guy's murder victims to dox him, but not a reporter? The funny thing with murderers is that they can only really be stopped by third parties.

[mirimir]

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.

[BHSPitMonkey]

Wait, what? I was directly responding to your criteria for assessing morality.

[mirimir]

Fair enough.

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.

[sinxoveretothex]

I can't tell if you're being serious or facetious.

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.

[mirimir]

People have all sorts of moral rules. It tends to vary by culture, religion, and so on. Maybe you can abstract them all into some overall set. But you lose some subtleties.

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.