Asking this question is the only way of determining whether a person is acting from a truly principled position, or whether they are using situational ethics.

The only true principle is one that binds your allies and your opponents equally. If it only applies to your opponents, then it's merely a rationalization.

I'm interested in finding like-minded people who are committed to applying principles equally. It's the only way of mediating conflict that does not devolve into pure tribalism. Unfortunately few people seem to be interested.

I think you will find that dragging in unrelated subjects isn't going to help make your argument because you are trying to find purchase on the individuals that you are talking to rather than to discuss the subject matter.

Applying principles equally implies that the subjects are comparable, which may be the case in your world view but you will find that your worldview rarely if ever overlaps the worldview of another person. So instead of trying to match worldviews we discuss topics individually of each other so that there is room for less than 100% black/white differentiation. Given two subjects that two people may or may not agree on there will be four populations of results given a large enough sample size. Whether you believe that those people are able to rationally apply their own principles or not isn't really the question the question is whether they believe that they are doing so and cherry picking your subjects doesn't give you more grip on their worldview, it only serves to reinforce your own.

It sounds like you don't think anyone should ever have to defend the question of why they apply different standards to different cases.

Suppose we have two warring factions that both constantly accuse each other of wrongs that they also commit. How do we escape the cycle of escalation?

> How do we escape the cycle of escalation?

By looking at each case individually. Rules are fun to make but tend to not work as soon as things get a bit more complicated. That's why we don't just have laws but also judges.

Judges do the opposite of looking at each case individually. The overriding principle of common law jurisdictions is stare decisis, which is to apply principles consistently according to precedent.

For my part, I look at this as an iterated prisoner's dilemma. I want to live in a society that values fairness and equal protection above all, even when that means conceding things that I would prefer not to concede if I was acting in pure self-interest.

I'll be honest, at a base level it amuses me to see Twitter label NPR as "Government-funded media," and to see NPR get mad about it. But because I want to live in a fair society, I'm willing to set that base feeling aside, and take really seriously the question of whether this is truly fair or merely the petty and arbitrary actions of an unprincipled billionaire.

But this deal only works if the other side is willing to do the same. And I have seen too many rounds of this iterated prisoner's dilemma where the other side is happy to take the W when it benefits them.

If I ally with the people criticizing Musk, but those same people are not willing to cooperate in pursuit of fairness when power benefits them, then I am in the loser quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma. No thanks.

So unless I see critics of Musk appeal to general principles that they are willing to stand up for, across the board, I just get out my popcorn and enjoy the show.