|
|
|
|
|
|
by dekhn
1706 days ago
|
|
|
I don't generally believe in morals (as opposed to utility) in ethics, but the MIT students who opposed this speaker are now morally obliged to listen to his criticism, because it's in good faith, rationally argued, and entirely within the context of the original lecture. Unless they can explain why it was necessary to force the cancellation of a speech that is in good faith and rational, I don't think the administration owes anything to people who want to censor views they don't believe in. (note: the tide already turned, what this guy has to say about DEI and careers has already returned to being the normal, default position, after a decade of overreach by social progressives) |
|
|
That's...exactly where this should end, if you wanted to make an honest ethical argument instead of one grounded in a foundation you admit that you reject as valid.
> the MIT students who opposed this speaker are now morally obliged to listen to his criticism, because it's in good faith, rationally argued, and entirely within the context of the original lecture.
the MIT students are not morally obligated to accept your conclusion as to whether the talk is in good faith or any of those other things, much less to take any particular action based on your belief about those things.