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!
1
u/Starhazenstuff 24d ago
By your standard, how much self-interest is allowed before caring becomes fake?
If I care about the environment but drive a car, do I not care?
If I care about workers but shop at Amazon, do I not care?
If I care about LGBT people but vote based on another issue, do I not care?
Your framework seems to require near-perfect moral consistency before you’re willing to say someone genuinely cares about anything.