Bumped by Community user
    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1106616204473573376
3 spelling corrected
source | link

When a person, especially a public figure, has committed a serious legal or moral violation, there is a tendency for friends/clients/companies/etc. to disassociatedissociate from that individual, even if the offence is not of a nature relevant to their prior relationship. The idea seems to be that to continue one's relationship with the person who has committed the violation implicitly endorses the offence, that it commits one to a certain view about the offence's ontology (that the offence is not actually an offence, or that it is less serious than others perceive it).

Even if such disassociationsdissociations are actually pragmatically motivated, as I'm sure is the case for companies at least, the pragmatic justification can surely be traced back to the above view in the mind of the public/social media/whatever people the company is sending a message to. The view seems similar to the colloquial sense of guilt by association, though it may not align with the technical sense of the term.

Does this view, that one's (lack of) association with an individual should mirror one's assessment of their legal or moral compliance, even when such considerations would have no visible impact on the relationship, have a name? Does its antithesis have a name? What are the most common arguments, if any, in favor of each side?

When a person, especially a public figure, has committed a serious legal or moral violation, there is a tendency for friends/clients/companies/etc. to disassociate from that individual, even if the offence is not of a nature relevant to their prior relationship. The idea seems to be that to continue one's relationship with the person who has committed the violation implicitly endorses the offence, that it commits one to a certain view about the offence's ontology (that the offence is not actually an offence, or that it is less serious than others perceive it).

Even if such disassociations are actually pragmatically motivated, as I'm sure is the case for companies at least, the pragmatic justification can surely be traced back to the above view in the mind of the public/social media/whatever people the company is sending a message to. The view seems similar to the colloquial sense of guilt by association, though it may not align with the technical sense of the term.

Does this view, that one's (lack of) association with an individual should mirror one's assessment of their legal or moral compliance, even when such considerations would have no visible impact on the relationship, have a name? Does its antithesis have a name? What are the most common arguments, if any, in favor of each side?

When a person, especially a public figure, has committed a serious legal or moral violation, there is a tendency for friends/clients/companies/etc. to dissociate from that individual, even if the offence is not of a nature relevant to their prior relationship. The idea seems to be that to continue one's relationship with the person who has committed the violation implicitly endorses the offence, that it commits one to a certain view about the offence's ontology (that the offence is not actually an offence, or that it is less serious than others perceive it).

Even if such dissociations are actually pragmatically motivated, as I'm sure is the case for companies at least, the pragmatic justification can surely be traced back to the above view in the mind of the public/social media/whatever people the company is sending a message to. The view seems similar to the colloquial sense of guilt by association, though it may not align with the technical sense of the term.

Does this view, that one's (lack of) association with an individual should mirror one's assessment of their legal or moral compliance, even when such considerations would have no visible impact on the relationship, have a name? Does its antithesis have a name? What are the most common arguments, if any, in favor of each side?

2 added 1 character in body
source | link

When a person, especially a public figure, has committed a serious legal or moral violation, there is a tendency for friends/clients/companies/etc. to disassociate from that individual, even if the offence is not of a nature relevant to their prior relationship. The idea seems to be that to continue one's relationship with the person who has committed the violation implicitly endorses the offence, that it commits one to a certain view about the offence's ontology (that the offence is not actually an offence, or that it is less serious than otherothers perceive it).

Even if such disassociations are actually pragmatically motivated, as I'm sure is the case for companies at least, the pragmatic justification can surely be traced back to the above view in the mind of the public/social media/whatever people the company is sending a message to. The view seems similar to the colloquial sense of guilt by association, though it may not align with the technical sense of the term.

Does this view, that one's (lack of) association with an individual should mirror one's assessment of their legal or moral compliance, even when such considerations would have no visible impact on the relationship, have a name? Does its antithesis have a name? What are the most common arguments, if any, in favor of each side?

When a person, especially a public figure, has committed a serious legal or moral violation, there is a tendency for friends/clients/companies/etc. to disassociate from that individual, even if the offence is not of a nature relevant to their prior relationship. The idea seems to be that to continue one's relationship with the person who has committed the violation implicitly endorses the offence, that it commits one to a certain view about the offence's ontology (that the offence is not actually an offence, or that it is less serious than other perceive it).

Even if such disassociations are actually pragmatically motivated, as I'm sure is the case for companies at least, the pragmatic justification can surely be traced back to the above view in the mind of the public/social media/whatever people the company is sending a message to. The view seems similar to the colloquial sense of guilt by association, though it may not align with the technical sense of the term.

Does this view, that one's (lack of) association with an individual should mirror one's assessment of their legal or moral compliance, even when such considerations would have no visible impact on the relationship, have a name? Does its antithesis have a name? What are the most common arguments, if any, in favor of each side?

When a person, especially a public figure, has committed a serious legal or moral violation, there is a tendency for friends/clients/companies/etc. to disassociate from that individual, even if the offence is not of a nature relevant to their prior relationship. The idea seems to be that to continue one's relationship with the person who has committed the violation implicitly endorses the offence, that it commits one to a certain view about the offence's ontology (that the offence is not actually an offence, or that it is less serious than others perceive it).

Even if such disassociations are actually pragmatically motivated, as I'm sure is the case for companies at least, the pragmatic justification can surely be traced back to the above view in the mind of the public/social media/whatever people the company is sending a message to. The view seems similar to the colloquial sense of guilt by association, though it may not align with the technical sense of the term.

Does this view, that one's (lack of) association with an individual should mirror one's assessment of their legal or moral compliance, even when such considerations would have no visible impact on the relationship, have a name? Does its antithesis have a name? What are the most common arguments, if any, in favor of each side?

1
source | link

Social Response to Legal/Moral Duty Violation

When a person, especially a public figure, has committed a serious legal or moral violation, there is a tendency for friends/clients/companies/etc. to disassociate from that individual, even if the offence is not of a nature relevant to their prior relationship. The idea seems to be that to continue one's relationship with the person who has committed the violation implicitly endorses the offence, that it commits one to a certain view about the offence's ontology (that the offence is not actually an offence, or that it is less serious than other perceive it).

Even if such disassociations are actually pragmatically motivated, as I'm sure is the case for companies at least, the pragmatic justification can surely be traced back to the above view in the mind of the public/social media/whatever people the company is sending a message to. The view seems similar to the colloquial sense of guilt by association, though it may not align with the technical sense of the term.

Does this view, that one's (lack of) association with an individual should mirror one's assessment of their legal or moral compliance, even when such considerations would have no visible impact on the relationship, have a name? Does its antithesis have a name? What are the most common arguments, if any, in favor of each side?