zlacker

[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+(OP)
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.

>>saalwe+(OP)
This is a very good point.

To me, the cops quitting in solidarity is a far worse problem than the cops pushing the old man.

We need to grasp that in a national eruption of 1000's of interactions, some of them will be bad. There will be emotions, stupidity, even racism and true bad acting. I fully expect that even in a highly professional and well-trained police force ... that stupid will happen.

BUT - the cops quitting ... this is 1) not a decision made 'in the moment of passion in the blink of an eye' and 2) as you say, it arguably contradicts the very nature of their oath.

My cousin, a Marine, said to me that a common creed is 'Unit, Corps, God, Country'. I don't know if that's official, colloquial, or even widely true ... but ... I found it really deeply wrong to put 'unit and corps' above 'god and country'. But I never got the chance to discuss it with him.

>>crazyg+Q
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+02
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.

>>saalwe+(OP)
I agree with your characterization of the police choosing brotherhood. But that setup is a bit of a straw man factory. One can have zero "absolute" moral principles, and weigh between them all with judgment and wisdom.

>>jariel+P1
I feel obligated to point out that, based on what I read thus far, they did not quit the force; just that particular unit ( supposedly over union not covering legal fees -- but no idea how true that is ).

>>crazyg+j2
By the original commenter's definition, value pluralism involves having zero, not many, core principles that are absolute.

"Absolute" is the key word.

>>GavinM+Z2
Is the comment meaningful if there's nobody that it describes?

>>mindsl+F2
I’m also fairly sure it’s not brotherhood, as much as self interest.

>>crazyg+Q
Indeed. There is no absolute moral principle, or absolute policy, or absolute form of government, or absolute ideology. The presumption is that people want to get to that absolute end of history, but every indication says they don't.

Hegel was full of shit.

>>GavinM+Z2
Thank you, that helped. "You can raise at most one principle to absolute priority."

>>saalwe+(OP)
>> Brotherhood, fraternity, loyalty to your group is frequently a good thing. Many things only work with trust.

One thing a trusted member of your group can do is call you out on bad behavior, rather than supporting it.

>>saalwe+(OP)
This is a good argument that these people shouldn't be enforcers of the law then if they won't enforce the law.

>>jariel+P1
> Unit, Corps, God, Country'. I don't know if that's official, colloquial, or even widely true ... but ... I found it really deeply wrong to put 'unit and corps' above 'god and country'. But I never got the chance to discuss it with him.

I'm pretty sure "unit corps God country" is from A Few Good Men, and the Marine motto is God Country Corps, which makes more sense.

That minor point aside, I agree with you. The "bad apples" defense doesn't stand up to the mass resignation in support of these cops.

>>8note+Y3
There certainly exist people who in their last moments sacrifice everything for something greater than themselves. If that's not an absolute sacrifice then no, there probably isn't.

But in the small we are always compromising on some things in favor of others. A principle can be upheld at great cost until it finally gives way. One principle can crumble away in favor of others very suddenly.

>>saalwe+(OP)
isn't this a pretty good example of why free speech might make a good candidate for the one absolute core principle?

>>danhar+02
No, they were saying these police officers hold one. Which is unfounded.

>>crazyg+j2
Then those values are not truly absolute by definition if they are being compromised on if absolute is to be held to mean what it is conventionally held to mean when used in the context of values. That definition of being inviolable.

>>8note+Y3
Sure, given that the point is merely to respond to those who claim many absolute allegiances.