Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I didn't say that it necessarily made them an immoral person. I said that the "act" of doing so was an immoral one. And I don't propose doing anything about it. I simply don't regard it as a moral way to react to the work.

Davem, this is quite preposterous, and you know it. For one thing, I did not say that it necessarily made them dangerous. And, for another, it is not a crime to think in an immoral way, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion that it should be.

The problem is we have three options - 1) the person is immoral & their choice of who they support reflect their natural immorality, 2) the person is moral but chooses to agree with an immoral act & 3) the person is amoral & chooses to agree with an immoral act. I leave aside the sudden flashes of anger & desire to lash out which will soon pass or be over-ridden by the individual.

The reason this is a 'problem' is that all three of the above alternatives mean that the person is actually 'immoral'.

1) means we are dealing with an immoral person.

2)If a moral person chooses to behave immorally, or support an immoral action he or she cannot be considered 'moral' - why would a moral person choose to support an immoral action? Indeed, how could a moral person be considered 'moral' by anyone if they choose to support an immoral act? Hence, a 'moral' person who chooses to support an immoral act is a logical impossibility. Thus, option 2) means we are dealing with an immoral person.

3) If an 'amoral' person chooses to support an immoral act they cannot actually be considered 'amoral' because they are making a conscious choice not to be either moral or amoral. So, option 3) again means we are dealing with an immoral person.

Which leaves us with an immoral person (said immorality being a temporary or permanent state). And it further leaves us with your statement that the immoral choice (freely made) does not make the person dangerous. But what does it make them - & if it doesn't make them dangerous in any way then for all practical purposes it is irrelevant - other than to give us someone to look down on as being 'less moral' than we are - but that is pretty much worthless if moral or immoral choices make no difference in real terms. What effect in real terms does making immoral choices have in your view? Aren't you in effect simply saying 'its not a nice way to think but it makes no practical difference to you or anyone else'?

Or when you say 'it does not necessarily make them dangerous' are you adding the unspoken corrollory 'but it may do'? In which case what do you do? You know that someone who consciously supports an immoral act may be dangerous but you do nothing about it?

My position is that supporting the 'bad guys' in a work of fiction is an aesthetic/emotional choice which may be made for many reasons - not a 'moral' choice. It is a matter of personal taste not ethics & personal taste is not something which can be held up for moral judgement.