|
|
|
|
|
by ImPostingOnHN
601 days ago
|
|
Neutral in the quote refers to both intention (being in favor of injustice) and effects (effectively supporting injustice). As for your analogy: You are describing legal and acceptable competition between diners, which is not comparable to the situation here, unless diner A initiated an unjustified, violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest against diner B, for which diner A has been condemned by most countries in the world, and also diner A's leader is wanted for war crimes against children committed while prosecuting this war, and is evading arrest. If that is the case, then yes,
remaining neutral or choosing diner A, is indeed choosing the side of the oppressor, and such a choice would reasonably reflect poorly on you. |
|
This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral, which to me seems fanatical, absolutist, and frankly unlivable.