Isn’t that what the Ethicist column always has been? Philosophy has even historically been a bourgeois subject. (I don’t think people usually put Marxism in philosophy classes.)
Also, I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
First I couldn’t read the full article because I don’t subscribe to the NYT, but…
I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
It’s providing cover in exactly the same way that billionaires use philanthropy to launder their image: by asserting that giving a tiny portion of one’s ill-gotten gains to ‘good causes’ somehow ameliorates the ethical implications of acquiring it in the first place.
Isn’t that what the Ethicist column always has been? Philosophy has even historically been a bourgeois subject. (I don’t think people usually put Marxism in philosophy classes.)
Also, I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
First I couldn’t read the full article because I don’t subscribe to the NYT, but…
It’s providing cover in exactly the same way that billionaires use philanthropy to launder their image: by asserting that giving a tiny portion of one’s ill-gotten gains to ‘good causes’ somehow ameliorates the ethical implications of acquiring it in the first place.
It does not.
If you redirect it all, it’s not a tiny portion.
I was speaking more broadly about billionaires giving a tiny portion of their wealth away, not this specific example.