zlacker

>>srames+(OP)
[EDIT: For context, this was detached from post_break's comment: "When a 75 year old man is trying to return a police helmet to them, and they push him down causing him to bleed from his head and ears, and they fire two officers who did it, and the rest resign from the riot group in purpose in support of the two who pushed him, what else could you possibly expect?"]

You can only have one absolute moral principle; everything else must ultimately be contingent on not violating that core principle.

I am usually bringing this up on HN in the context of free speech, because I think free speech is a poor choice to make your absolute moral principle.

In this context, there's another example of a poor choice for an absolute principle.

Brotherhood, fraternity, loyalty to your group is frequently a good thing. Many things only work with trust.

But this is what it looks like when brotherhood -- loyalty to your fellow police officers, in this case -- is your absolute moral principle. Upholding the law and protecting the innocent come second to protecting your own.

>>saalwe+w6
There's an entire strand of philosophical thought that disagrees with you about any single core principle existing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism

And modern psychology and neuroscience appear to back it up.

>>crazyg+m7
They didn't say there is one global unique absolute moral principle that anyone can hold. They're saying you can only hold one, because necessarily everything else must be compromised in favor of it.

>>danhar+w8
Right. Value pluralism says that's not true. That you can (and do) hold many. And that we make compromises between our different values all day long every day -- within ourselves.

>>crazyg+P8
By the original commenter's definition, value pluralism involves having zero, not many, core principles that are absolute.

"Absolute" is the key word.

>>GavinM+v9
Is the comment meaningful if there's nobody that it describes?