No, there isn't. What is and isn't immoral is subjective, hence open to opinion.
The best basis for "outright immoral" is universal agreement - I don't know that there is on this topic. Recognition of a work isn't the same as praise of the individual - good work can come from bad people. And in the case of a work like a film, there are multiple stakeholders.
I'd also like to note that "paedophile" in this case is probably being used to mean "child molester", i.e someone who has committed a crime.
The quote is as follows: Yes, pedophile are other things than pedophiles. If they happen to be good at those things, which dont happen to be pedophilia - there is no reason why we should deny them recognition for taking humanity two steps forward, one step back.
At least from my understanding, society takes a hard line on pedophilia so this is universal agreement on its immorality.
My take was more on what justice means and whether we can question human inconsistency.
Like whether a persons genius has something to do with the bad deeds or the worst part of themselves has something to do with their genius.
There is an excellent essay by Heinrich Oppenhiemer called The Rationale of Punishment [0] It's quite the thought provoking read despite being over a century old. People then struggled with the question of justice - what is fair - just as we do today.
The idea of fairness, to mete out punishment and dole out reward with equal measure, should be the foundation of justice. Yes, we should lock the molester in a dark cell for life for his crime, but justice demands that if he has done good works - those be recognised with the exactude of their contribution, not with spite.
Some old Chinese texts on Mohism should also be an entertaining read - with good leaders both in government and military said to have mastered fairness in reward and punishment [1]
So I'm hoping at the least you can see nothing is so black and white when it comes to the justice of reward and punishment. The idea of being just is seen as virtuous throughout the ages across all cultures from the Zulu to the Muari to the Aztecs to the Sycithians to ancient Egyptians to Han China - because it hard.
You haven't added anything not in my post, or addressed any detail.
Its not obvious what a "hard line" on sexual abuse is, or how you think society behaves on the matter; it doesn't obviously include denying recognition of works.
At least in this case, it seems that there is disagreement on opinions, period. You think that something is outright immoral, and another user thinks that the same thing is moral - so you have a disagreement in opinions. If someone is - in your opinion - outright immoral, that's okay, you don't have to agree on a shared morality and can keep disagreeing, but it is not a sufficient reason to ban someone.
