Right. Telling the bank robber he’s being antisocial doesn’t work, because he already knows that. What you need is a police force to throw the robber in jail. Then people who don’t want to go to jail won’t even try to rob the bank. That was what the meetup ban suggestion was about. If even that fails to deter potential snitches and your internet community can’t escalate any further (because the local non-internet police insist on maintaining their monopoly on violence), then your community might not be able to successfully protect its reputation.
Yes, of course. I’m not a monster—at least, not according to my moral intuition. But sometimes there’s not an obvious morally right or wrong answer when the interests of multiple parties are at stake. In the case of “my interest in having candid conversations with people and doing cool meta-journalism blogging” versus “the community’s interest in protecting its collective reputation”, the latter just does not seem compelling to my moral intuition. If that makes me a monster with respect to your moral intuition, well, that’s when you need the police.
ut sometimes there’s not an obvious morally right or wrong answer when the interests of multiple parties are at stake.
But “I don’t care much about the interests of the other party” is not a necessary part of comparing those interests.
If you don’t care much about the interests of the other party, the outcome of comparing their interests to yours will, of course, be that you always win.
You seem to be treating this as some kind of personal injury which you are entitled to demand the immediate cessation of, whereas Zack’s perspective could be summarized as “Lèse-majesté doesn’t violate the NAP”. The Metz transcripts describe at greath length why Zack does not respect the community’s majesté, so you may have better luck persuading him if you adopt a perspective in which people are not entitled to a good reputation.
Right. Telling the bank robber he’s being antisocial doesn’t work, because he already knows that. What you need is a police force to throw the robber in jail. Then people who don’t want to go to jail won’t even try to rob the bank. That was what the meetup ban suggestion was about. If even that fails to deter potential snitches and your internet community can’t escalate any further (because the local non-internet police insist on maintaining their monopoly on violence), then your community might not be able to successfully protect its reputation.
Do you even believe there is such a thing as right and wrong when no police or similar enforcers are involved?
Yes, of course. I’m not a monster—at least, not according to my moral intuition. But sometimes there’s not an obvious morally right or wrong answer when the interests of multiple parties are at stake. In the case of “my interest in having candid conversations with people and doing cool meta-journalism blogging” versus “the community’s interest in protecting its collective reputation”, the latter just does not seem compelling to my moral intuition. If that makes me a monster with respect to your moral intuition, well, that’s when you need the police.
But “I don’t care much about the interests of the other party” is not a necessary part of comparing those interests.
If you don’t care much about the interests of the other party, the outcome of comparing their interests to yours will, of course, be that you always win.
You seem to be treating this as some kind of personal injury which you are entitled to demand the immediate cessation of, whereas Zack’s perspective could be summarized as “Lèse-majesté doesn’t violate the NAP”. The Metz transcripts describe at greath length why Zack does not respect the community’s majesté, so you may have better luck persuading him if you adopt a perspective in which people are not entitled to a good reputation.