The suffering in Sudan simply does not register in the Western consciousness, even among those who purport to care about genocide and ethnic cleansing.
As I have said many times before, most people are selective ethicists, applying their convoluted moral frameworks inconsistently.
Given statistics on veganism, you have a 95-99% chance that anyone making a moral claim is a selective ethicist. The low rate of ethical veganism further supports my hunch that everyone is a selective ethicist.
Radical subjectivity is the actual state of reality, you know. The question is, does "intention" trump effective outcome? If you arrive at the right answers for the wrong reasons, is your action any less right?
@escarpment@shekinahcancook We are on the verge of disrupting the stability of Earth’s climate. Once unstable, there is no guarantee that it will return to the same climate equilibrium in which humanity or other life thrives. The geophysical history of Earth shows multiple climate equilibriums. Many remained stable for millions of years. Earth climate is a multi-stable system, potentially moving now towards a new, inhospitable climate equilibrium.
You'll notice Arab and Muslim Israelis have no interest in fleeing Israel, either. They certainly are blase about their supposed genocide. It's like to them, it's not even happening.
I had the thought recently that if nothing can escape a black hole, and they just get denser and denser, then that's pretty final- nothing ever changes beyond that. That matter is permanently stuck. Complete stasis.
But, apparently not so. Hawking radiation emits from black holes extremely slowly, and it is theorized that black holes eventually evaporate and vanish. So the universe continues changing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Perhaps moral anti-realism can shed light on some of the trends and issues in modern parenting. There is some hand-wringing among parents about labeling things good or bad. Parents don't want their children to think of themselves as bad.
A moral anti-realist might say, people are objectively neither good nor bad. People have subjective opinions and set goals based on those opinions. For example, it's subjective whether coloring inside the lines is better than coloring outside the lines.
Once you have made a subjective appraisal, such as that you prefer when colors fit neatly inside the lines, you can then judge objectively whether the result matches your subjective appraisal. But the subjective appraisal can always change. One day, you might prefer colors inside the lines; another day, you might prefer them outside the lines. There is no objective value of colors being inside the lines.
There seems to be an anarchist/socialist/anti-Israel echo chamber on Mastodon. I am liberal and an atheist and would expect to have a fair amount in common with this way of thinking.
And yet, I cannot disagree more strongly with them on so many issues, most notably Israel's right to exist. And disagreements are met with "righteous" hostility.
It is tragic that modern states have to establish boundaries which, when violated, they must commit atrocities. But that apparently is necessary in the face of brazen enemies. For example, NATO. Russia needs to know that if they attack a single square foot of NATO soil, NATO has no choice but to retaliate with devastating force. The policy has to be automatic. It has to be "you wouldn't dare do something so stupid and self-destructive, would you?"
@escarpment Hamas members do not think like people from democratic perspectives, with any attention to rights or responsibilities; they are prepared to sacrifice even their own for their extremist religious opposition to the nation of Israel. They play on the trauma of Palestinians for power, and they do not care who they kill. People in free countries often expect everyone to think and act as they would, but this is not reality. Hamas does not have a moral code that values life.