Oops. Reading through the comments, I think my post was misunderstood as some kind of prescription for moral progress. In retrospect, the term ‘most moral minority’ was too loaded, and when I wrote ‘the world would be better’ if I heeded the morality of minority positions, I only meant my own preferences would be better satisfied if more people’s preferences were satisfied—not that people’s preferences would be best satisfied if they listened to the minority. Very different things, but I can see now reading through my post I was never careful to distance myself from the second stance.
By ‘most moral minority’ I meant having a greater number of moral opinions (e.g., opinions when other people were silent), not that their opinions were necessarilymore moral.
I had meant to say something very simple: if someone should care where I do not care, I would try to fold their interests into my own. I’m sorry for the confusion .
Oops. Reading through the comments, I think my post was misunderstood as some kind of prescription for moral progress. In retrospect, the term ‘most moral minority’ was too loaded, and when I wrote ‘the world would be better’ if I heeded the morality of minority positions, I only meant my own preferences would be better satisfied if more people’s preferences were satisfied—not that people’s preferences would be best satisfied if they listened to the minority. Very different things, but I can see now reading through my post I was never careful to distance myself from the second stance.
By ‘most moral minority’ I meant having a greater number of moral opinions (e.g., opinions when other people were silent), not that their opinions were necessarilymore moral.
I had meant to say something very simple: if someone should care where I do not care, I would try to fold their interests into my own. I’m sorry for the confusion .