|
LadyEllen -> RE: intel or law? (2/12/2010 1:12:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I already have. Moral equivalency cannot possibly exist. If your moral code is superior then defending it sometimes forces you to employ actions antithetical to that code or your self-imposed limitations will defeat you in the long run. Survival is the number one principle, and trumps all others.
You see, I can agree with the general thrust of this - ultimately we all do what we have to do when the chips are down, to protect ourselves and ours. There are very few people so adherent to high moral and ethical standards that they would stand by and lose out rather than breach those standards.
But where I have a problem is in understanding that one will vary those standards according to the situation, whilst at the same time professing and preaching and making a self portrait of oneself as an upright and righteous person.
Why we cannot simply acknowledge, and make it known to others, that whilst we aspire to high standards we do not consider ourselves to personify them and will receive others in the manner they meet with us, aiming high or low according to their approach, I dont know.
We certainly dont want to be the down and dirty of the world (though too often we are) but we also shouldnt pretend to moral and ethical superiority which serves to make hypocrites of us when we are obliged to get down and dirty, and makes us seem not morally relative but amoral.
E
|
|
|
|
