this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
1552 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
87184 readers
4482 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do, though, is the thing. As does all of society. We always have and we always will. And you're lying to yourself if you think you don't take advantage of that flexibility yourself.
So in other words.. There's nuance. It's not just how much we dislike the target, there's other stuff to consider too. We need
Context ๐ฒ
You're equivocating between two different questions: whether an act is justified and what the act is.
Yes, context matters when determining whether an action is morally or legally justified. Self-defense, necessity, and defense of others are all examples. I have never argued otherwise.
What I've been arguing is that context does not redefine the underlying act itself. If someone intentionally takes property without permission, that's theft. It may be justified theft, just as killing in self-defense is still killing and, in many legal systems, would technically satisfy the actus reus of homicide while being legally excused or justified.
That's why "a starving person stealing bread" is a classic moral dilemma. It's compelling precisely because it's still theft, even if most people agree it's morally justified.
So when people celebrate the theft of construction materials simply because they dislike AI data centers, they're making a moral argument, not changing the definition of theft. If they want to say, "I think this theft is justified," that's a coherent position. Saying "it's not theft because I approve of it" is not.
That's what they did.. And then you complained that people were being too flexible with their morals.
You can keep shifting the goalpost now or just accept you didn't word your OC very well.
I haven't moved the goalposts.
What are you talking about?
I've been very consistent with what I've been saying. At no point have I claimed that people are being too flexible with their morals.
I've essentially made three points:
Theft is morally wrong, regardless of whether it can be justified in a particular circumstance.
Lemmy is being two-faced in how it applies its moral standards.
Theft is, by definition, wrongdoing.
I've repeatedly acknowledged that theft is highly nuanced and that there are situations where it can be morally justified. I've said that multiple times. My criticism is that many Lemmy users will admonish people who disagree with their personal opinions, yet turn around and excuse or even celebrate theft whenever it's directed at something they dislike.
Either theft is theft, or it isn't. Definitions don't change based on personal opinion, and neither does the law. Whether an act is morally justified is a separate question from whether it still fits the definition of theft.