“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
that’s a consequentialist view of ethics, and one to which i don’t subscribe
removed by mod
Removed, rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
nonconsequentialist ethics are strongly preferred by professional philosophers, so someone here might be ignorant, but it’s not me.
Professional philosophers! Oh, I’m sold.
they’re the experts on ethics
They are! They are professionals!