[sacrificedcapon]

Your "morals" precludes anyone from working at any major company. Let alone companies like WashingtonPost who helped start many illegal wars and led to the death of millions of innocent people with their lies.

Using your logic, the murdered journalist took blood money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

If you work for pretty much any major company in the world, you are receiving "blood money". If you are working for the US government or any major government, you are receiving "blood money".

Can you point me to a company that is "without sin"?

[ian0]

1. I think everyone would agree there is an obvious moral difference between working for your neighbourhood builder who occasionally overcharges and maintaining the fences on a concentration camp. IE there are degrees of harm, we don't deal in black and whites. Working as a kindergarten teacher for a government does not imply you are any more or less responsible for that government going to war than say a local independent farmer.

2. Not many people would conflate working for washington post and helping to kill civilians in the middle east. But perhaps if shown enough evidence they would maybe do so and act accordingly. So knowledge, like the knowledge in this article, enabled the OP to make an ethical decision.

3. Your comment doesn't help anyone. Because you have discounted degrees of harm ("any major company in the world", "any government") and this then undermined the small bit of knowledge imparted (the WP link). The nett effect is a call to inaction.

[eeZah7Ux]

Excellent example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy