I agree with his point, but I dislike how he talks of it as right versus pragmatic. It should be moralising versus pragmatic.
'Right' means 'true', and the moralising stance he talks about is not the correct way to deal with the problem. It's not 'right', it's blinkered moralising.
Calling such things 'right' muddles the notion of truth. We don't need more of this. Most of the people I come across seem to think there's no such thing as truth because it's all relative, and uses of 'right' like in this article serve to reinforce such beliefs.
They just kept posting more signs, because they were convinced that they were right.
They believed that the right way to solve the problem was for people to use the bin where it was located (that is, an empirical view as to what was the best solution, driven by a moralising attitude).
His point is that their view was incorrect - false.
'Right' means 'true', and the moralising stance he talks about is not the correct way to deal with the problem. It's not 'right', it's blinkered moralising.
Calling such things 'right' muddles the notion of truth. We don't need more of this. Most of the people I come across seem to think there's no such thing as truth because it's all relative, and uses of 'right' like in this article serve to reinforce such beliefs.