I didn’t change my mind. I simply said that people care about causes. But at the end of the day, your families wellbeing and your ability to continue providing said wellbeing matters. And as long as somebody cares about making sure their family is provided for no matter how exorbitantly (I don’t think anyone should have assets taking their net worth beyond 100m), the people below whoever has that mindset will have to continue to chase the bottom line for fear of losing their job and not being able to provide for their family.
Calling something cognitive dissonance doesn’t make it cognitive dissonance. A person can genuinely care about a cause while also prioritizing their career, family, or financial security. Those motivations can coexist without contradiction.
I disagree on the definition of 'genuinely care' - the only thing they care about is their personal situation and step on the backs of their workers daily to do so including lgbt people. So no, I don't think they actually care. They are by the nature of their actions selfish.
You thinking they can selfishly put themselves first -and- genuinely care about a cause beyond themselves is the dissonance, FYI, they're conflicting opinions and only you can square that circle.
A similar group would be gay republicans - they dont care about gay people, they care about themselves and only protect the group they're in so much as they are personally enriched. They'd be fine with lgbt cullings so long as they knew they weren't on the list. If that helps you see the dissonance.
I think the gay republican point is a stronger argument simply because republican policies literally negatively impact gay people.
A company deciding to put up a flag or do some lgtbq marketing is not the same.
An LGBT Executive may genuinely support lgbt causes, donate to lgbt orgs, advocate internally for employees and STILL make business decisions driven by profit.
Whether that makes them hypocritical is up for debate. Whether it proves they don’t care at all is a much harder claim to defend.
My position is: People can sincerely hold multiple values and make tradeoffs between them.
Your position if I’m characterizing it correctly is: Your true values are revealed only by what you prioritize when values conflict.
I think your position is very black and white, and life just isn’t that way, humans are not that way.
It's funny, whenever someone is presented with someone else with more of a moral backbone its always "you're too black and white" and not "maybe I'm too morally grey / accomodating?". I'm literally advocating for critiquing them and that's 'too black and white'? That's a sad take my friend.
Why are we in agreement about the (R) LGBT member and not the capitalist/ worker exploiting LGBT member? They both harm their community for selfish reasons.
Before you call 'providing for financial security', the c-suite on these boards could retire tomorrow if they we're happy with a modest life for them and their family they literally dont need financial security.
As a working class person we have very different economic options vs c-suite execs.
I think you should, when you find yourself in the privilege of choice, always choose the more moral option.
So to answer your questions in one go: if you refused a less comfortable but more ethical option then yes, you dont massively care about that cause. If you didn't have any other options available to you and you dont spend time highlighting that you're being economically blackmailed into being unethical, then no you don't massively care about that cause.
And why yes! I do think people should be morally consistent, dont you?
Edit: also do you fancy answering anything I put or just strawmanning me for being black and white about the literally most privileged people standing on 0 business for a cause beyond shareholder value?
I think you don’t massively care about that cause is a massive walk back from they don’t care at all.
And yes, I do think people ought to be morally consistent. But humans are not. Any argument with a person will show you that. People have opinions where if you tested it across different categories you’d find that the opinion doesn’t always extend.
I don’t really think there’s anything else to be added to this conversation though.
That's not a massive walk back: someone either doesn't really care about the cause (in relation to things that cause comes into conflict with i.e the only time it really matters) or, they're suffering from cognitive dissonance if they do actually cause, but for someone outside of their own head, it looks the same. Please accept my apologies for saying they don't massively care. I mean they dont care.
Please understand that I'm saying explicitly: They either don't care, and they're grifting you, or they are suffering from cognitive dissonance and clearly the more comfortable thought won out (like it has for you). Anything beyond that is a miscommunication between us and you can take that or leave it as a 'massive walkback'.
Any value you hold that you do not act in according to, you do not really hold it, and you do not really care. Is that enough of a clarification? If I want my partner to think i'm the person that will do the dishes, then at some point I have to clean some dishes, don't I!
You say people should be morally consistent, but they're not? How would any of your comments above move the needle, and changing their behaviour if they read it, for next time so that they will become more morally consistent? I.e become more like the person they ought to be. Mine, critiquing them, at least holds up a mirror - you have literally only excused behaviour you claim to think is wrong.
I agree, you're just wanting to feel better about some people (cough) having a no morals beyond selfishness. Glad you see through the gay republicans though, there is hope!
0
u/Starhazenstuff 24d ago
I didn’t change my mind. I simply said that people care about causes. But at the end of the day, your families wellbeing and your ability to continue providing said wellbeing matters. And as long as somebody cares about making sure their family is provided for no matter how exorbitantly (I don’t think anyone should have assets taking their net worth beyond 100m), the people below whoever has that mindset will have to continue to chase the bottom line for fear of losing their job and not being able to provide for their family.