Instead of seeing the nuance, you’d see everything that comes out of Elon Musk or Israel whoever you’ve managed to convince yourself is that current villain, as bad - without attention to details. More than that - you’d waste your time arguing whether they are “good” or “bad”, instead of focusing on specific actions, which is what society as a whole seems to enjoy seem to gravitate towards, and what increases polarization and reduce proper discourse.
We made a machine that is driven by emotions and rewards short and exaggerated interactions. On the surface it's black and white, but in each such situations there is also nuanced discussions and people that reflect things. I often also carry such moral debates to friends, I assume others do as well. There is at least a portion of nuance. Saying it's always black and white, is black and white thinking itself.
What I would agree with is that groupthink is a problem. People choose sides depending on who or which group said it. Also virtue signalling, as it's often just (unconscious) reputation management and hinders progress.
Moralism can make people see things without nuance (i.e. saying "stealing is bad" with no regard for the context). This must be tempered. But this is not a good reason to throw out the pursuit of shared moral values within society.
When was this ever not the case? And what makes you think that you (or any other human) are somehow morally superior and would do a better job if subject to the same environment and pressures?
The point is that power corrupts, so we try to design decentralized systems wherever possible that don't require absolute power to function (ie. free markets, the internet, etc). Trusting specific human animals to wield authority over us in a non-awful way is not a reliable solution.
> Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.
Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.
Morals are necessary for humans to live together. We all shape them, we are all entitled to do so, they are inevitable. We encode morals into laws if we deem it necessary. But that doesn't originate from an individual in a functioning democracy. It's a process, not a individual decision. Each individual can decide to stand for it's own morals. A large public backlash is a sign that you acted against public morals, you don't have to agree, but you have to deal with it. That's how a society works if everyone is free to speak and has a tiny bit of power.
> Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.
I didn't mean any of that, I don't even know how you come up with that conclusion. My example simply expresses that a simple act of theft can ruin a persons life, while powerful people cause much more damage and get away with it.
That being said, I find it odd to moralize on moralism. We have way too many people in power that are awful humans and do a bad job and never get punished.
Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.
There is no balance.
(This isn't about buffet, idc, just about your interwoven opinion.)