> But his politics centers around the moral failings of the West so I think yes, if he was involved in the sexual exploitation of trafficked children, then this would devalue his criticism of the morality of the Western political system.
Why would it devalue his criticism assuming he was right?
Moral arguments for me don’t stand alone like a mathematical proof or scientific findings which can be examined as some sort of platonic form.
Morality arguments are social and contextual. That 2+2 is 4 won’t change and captures some sort of eternal truth while what is deemed moral is constantly changing over time and differs across different societies and social groupings.
So morality arguments require and appeal to a particular shared sense of right and wrong. If Chomsky was guilty of sexually abusing children, then I do not share his moral foundation and so his appeals to morality arguments do not convince me.
Do you have an example where Chomsky might be right but you disagree with him because of his moral depravity?
Why? There are some of Chomsky’s positions I’m sure I agree with and some I disagree with. What’s the relevance to my point?
If it turns out that Chomsky was sexually abusing children would you start disagreeing with Chomskys positions you agreed previously?