It’s not, but legal is not the same as ethical.

For a long time, and probably still, it was legal for the US to torture enemy combatants. It was never ethical.

If you add to that the very broad limits of what the current administration considers "legal" (as in "pretty much anything we want to do"), I can understand feeling uneasy as a Google employee...

▲

gigatree 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You’d need some shared ethical/moral framework to make that claim, which doesn’t really seem to exist anymore

▲

yibg 2 days ago | parent [-]

You don't need a shared moral framework to come to a personal moral conclusion.

▲

lo_zamoyski 2 days ago | parent [-]

What does that mean? How does one come to a personal moral conclusion? Vibes?

(I take "moral framework" to mean a principled stance that gives objective grounding for a moral judgement. I agree that we can come to a moral judgement without putting it through a systematic and discursive defense, and I reject the notion that there are many moralities or that they are arbitrary, but it is also true that diverging conceptions of the basis of morality will frustrate agreement. Stopping at personal moral judgement does not lend itself to fruitful dialogue and understanding, as it constraints the domain of what is intersubjectively knowable.)

	▲	yibg 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My moral framework can be different from yours. Me the individual can come to the conclusion that something is immoral when the rest of the group doesn’t agree with me. And (at least for my own moral framework) I should take action accordingly. So I don’t need a shared framework to make the claim that something is immoral (to me).