How do you define what goal is morally acceptable? Are you certain that your assumption of morality is universal and objective? You have just said almost exactly what I said you said, and yet you claim that's not what you said:
What exactly is the meaningful difference between those two statements?
No of course you didn't - you didn't extend that courtesy to others. You've withheld that role to yourself alone. As long as phiwum believes it is a good cause, then it's okay. Whether other people agree with phiwum is irrelevant - their beliefs don't matter, only phiwum's belief matters.
Nazis are fine as long as they take no action. I don't give a crap what they believe. I give enormous craps about what they do. They can think whatever ridiculous and horrifying thing they want. I don't care what they believe any more than I care that people believe that women are inferior to men, or that babies would make really kitchy purses, or that dogs are yummy for dinner. As soon as they engage in an action that is directly causes harm to another person, that's a different story. As soon as they start infringing on the rights of other people, action is appropriate.
But I don't give a crap *why* they're infringing on someone else's rights. I care that they have done so. It could be because they're stupid bigots. It could be because the voices in their head said to. It could be because the color green sends them into a rage. I don't care. I care about the action.
And excusing the infringement of other people's rights because you don't like the things they think is inexcusable to me.
