Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
If you don't have the resources to fix everything, you have to make choices, and this is difficult to reconcile with absolute morality.
|
I don't agree that it is difficult to reconcile with absolute morality. It may make for a difficult choice, but if you don't have the ability to do something, it is not immoral not to do it.
If there are two people drowning and you have the ability to save them but refuse to save them, that is immoral. If you only have the physical ability to save one, that makes for a difficult choice as to which one to save, but it is not immoral to only save one since you don't have the ability to save two.
In the case of the US ability to save the world, we don't have the resources to do it. Moreover, trying to save certain oppressed people by military intervention, like the North Koreans or Chinese, would run such a great risk that far more people would be killed than would be saved that it would be immoral to try to do it by military intervention.
Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
The second problem (and Atticus's point, if I may speak for him) is that it leads one to believe one is above the law. I have no doubt that those responsible for selling arms to Iran and then diverting the proceeds to support the Contras believe that they acted with absolute moral authority. This disturbs me, because by doing so that acted in direct contravention not just to general laws, but specific laws drawn to specifically prohibit such actions. It apparently disturbs many Republicans less.
|
It does disturb me less than it disturbs you. If those laws were malum in se laws, that would disturb me if they were violated by an administration. Violating malum prohibitum laws for the purpose of the greater good disturbs me less. I would even go so far as to say it is an act of moral courage, although not something I want a president to do since separation of powers is a good thing. Violating those laws was illegal, but not immoral.
Threaded Mode