tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post112364232591421256..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: The Immorality of Moral JustificationRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-63496435242965610122015-12-16T17:00:26.643-05:002015-12-16T17:00:26.643-05:00Hello, I think that people should know what to do ...Hello, I think that people should know what to do about moral justification for what they know is right, yes some people might "brainwash" themselves into thinking that what they are doing is justified but they should know on the inside what is morally correct. They shouldn't need any tools because for that in a way people would have to "give" them the tools, but a person can't teach another on what is morally justified. People may be able to help but won't be able to prepare them for every situation. To bring it back to the tool analogy, it would be like having a screwdriver when you need a wrench.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430366007518534409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1162531340866555812006-11-03T00:22:00.000-05:002006-11-03T00:22:00.000-05:00I tend to think that a person (who is not omniscie...I tend to think that a person (who is not omniscient) cannot make the claim that some solution is the best available. They can only say that they do not see a better way.<BR/><BR/>Hm....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1162530857395364512006-11-03T00:14:00.000-05:002006-11-03T00:14:00.000-05:00Hi Richard. Necessary = best? I don't think so... ...Hi Richard. Necessary = best? I don't think so... If I torture (via grisly medical experiments) and kill a child (for organ harvest) to save ten children (of dying of a disease), and then meet this child-person in heaven to discuss it, I think he could agree the action was necessary to achieve the goal, but disagree that it was the best available since for him, it could hardly get any worse, and he certainly would have thought that letting him live & let the other kids die was the preferred way to go.<BR/><BR/>It is a case of choosing the lesser evil, no? Conceivably, another person could argue that 1 case of medical torture and murder is worse than 10 cases of dying of a disease.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1162346701006385472006-10-31T21:05:00.000-05:002006-10-31T21:05:00.000-05:00Hi Vera!If something is necessary, then it's presu...Hi Vera!<BR/><BR/>If something is necessary, then it's presumably the best available action (perhaps for the trivial reason that no alternatives are available). Does 'moral' mean something other than 'best available action'? If so, you'll need to explain this.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and I realize now that I never did write that promised follow-up post on "moral theory and practice". Apologies. I can't even remember what I was going to say any more (probably something related to indirect utilitarianism), though hopefully it'll come back to me...Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1162331106070163442006-10-31T16:45:00.000-05:002006-10-31T16:45:00.000-05:00Hi Richard... been thinking for one reason or anot...Hi Richard... been thinking for one reason or another of our discussion. Came across a uni site that lists moral fallacies, and thought it applied to our impasse here. "Just because something is necessary, does not make it moral." Maybe to kill all the 10-year olds to save the planet from the aliens is necessary, but it does not follow it's moral.<BR/><BR/>But then again, maybe I already made that point earlier. Not sure. Would enjoy hearing if you had any further thoughts on this topic.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>VeraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1128207802710156902005-10-01T19:03:00.000-04:002005-10-01T19:03:00.000-04:00If you would just take your time to know your way ...If you would just take your time to know your way around, you could discover a lot of premium products and services being offered for free.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125341374186350292005-08-29T14:49:00.000-04:002005-08-29T14:49:00.000-04:00Gotcha.Gotcha.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125316580316416262005-08-29T07:56:00.000-04:002005-08-29T07:56:00.000-04:00Re #1: no problem. Consider the question of what m...Re #1: no problem. Consider the question of what makes something <I>red</I>. The answer, let us say, is that it has the surface reflectance property R, such that only certain wavelengths of light will be reflected off it in normal conditions. (By contrast, we <I>learn</I> that something is red by a much simpler method: we just <I>look</I> at it, and allow our perceptual mechanisms to do all the hard work!) Similarly, what makes something <I>hot</I> is molecular movement. And what makes something <I>wrong</I> is, <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/08/red-pill-arbitrary-ethics.html#comments" REL="nofollow">I argue</A>, that it is detrimental to human well-being.<BR/><BR/>It would be absurdly arbitrary to suggest that adherence to a list of do's and do not's could be what <I>makes</I> an action right or wrong. Surely there is some more fundamental property underlying this, and our rules are instead guidelines to help us track this underlying property in a more reliable fashion. (Much like using our eyes helps us to identify red things, but it is reflectance property R that <I>makes</I> things red. And our nerves can detect heat, but it is molecular movement that <I>makes</I> things hot.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125315935528031872005-08-29T07:45:00.000-04:002005-08-29T07:45:00.000-04:00Richard, I am not sure what you mean by #1 -- can ...Richard, I am not sure what you mean by #1 -- can you give a concrete example of the non-moral kind, so I can visualize what you mean? I tried it and got stuck.<BR/><BR/>>If careful and critical examination of an argument leads one to conclude that the premises are all true and the conclusion logically follows from the premises, then this suggests that the conclusion is true.<<BR/><BR/>The reason I raised the double checking issue is that we do not have access to Truth, and need different ways to corroborate. In science, it is experience in the world that corroborates or falsifies a theory (or a hypothesis); an argument by itself may look perfect but not pan out in the real world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125186239798164812005-08-27T19:43:00.000-04:002005-08-27T19:43:00.000-04:00Rationality. If careful and critical examination o...Rationality. If careful and critical examination of an argument leads one to conclude that the premises are all true and the conclusion logically follows from the premises, then this suggests that the conclusion is true. (Obviously this process is fallible, but it's still the best one could possibly hope for.)<BR/><BR/>The same holds for every form of evidence, and every form of philosophical argument. There's nothing unique about moral justification here. If you reject it, you reject the entire enterprise of philosophy.<BR/><BR/>P.S. Be careful not to conflate the questions of (1) what facts <I>determine</I> whether an action is right/justified or not; and (2) how we can <I>learn</I> this.<BR/><BR/>I'm primarily interested in the first question. You seem more concerned about the second. I'll discuss how they tie together in the promised forthcoming post. For now, note that a successful justification ties in with the 1st question. But of course we can't know for certain whether an attempted justification is a successful one or not, in this sense. Just like we can't know whether an attempted scientific explanation is a true one. In both cases, we have to appeal to the usual (and fallible) <I>indicators</I> of truth that govern rational debates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125172675604639392005-08-27T15:57:00.000-04:002005-08-27T15:57:00.000-04:00What I am about to write is not a way to toss just...What I am about to write is not a way to toss justification. It seems to me I am missing a part of the argument. It ties into what Richard had said earlier. I am looking for clarification. If I am being unfair to your words, Richard, please point out where. I am basically repeating what you had said (though in my own words).<BR/><BR/>“We tell right and wrong through the process of moral justification. Moral justification produces a successful result (by definition) if the action turns out to be right.”<BR/><BR/>This is what I am seeing: Moral justification produces a successful result if the action turns out to be right. How do we know the action is right? Because it’s morally justified!<BR/><BR/>This is completely circular, and has nothing to do with any ambiguity or confusion with epistemic justification that I can see. It’s all strictly about moral justification.<BR/><BR/>This is another way to put it (by analogy): Repairing my car by my favorite mechanic produces a successful result if the car runs well. How do I know the car runs well? Because it was repaired by my favorite mechanic!<BR/><BR/>Clearly, the success of a method can only be ascertained if we have an independent criterion that can be used to falsify the results of the first method. Such as actually taking my car on the road and seeing how it runs. What is the independent method to ascertain right and wrong that acts as a cross check for moral justification?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125155156745107992005-08-27T11:05:00.000-04:002005-08-27T11:05:00.000-04:00Looks like we are back to sniping at each other. L...Looks like we are back to sniping at each other. Let's not keep going down that path...<BR/><BR/>I will be in touch anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125099465686496822005-08-26T19:37:00.000-04:002005-08-26T19:37:00.000-04:00Vera, I mean the same thing by "rational moral inq...Vera, I mean the same thing by "rational moral inquiry" and (sincere attempts at reasoned) "moral justification". The enterprise of moral justification <I>just is</I> rational moral inquiry. That's what philosophers are doing when they discuss moral justification. (You keep confusing the term with insincere 'rationalization', which is simply unhelpful and question-begging.)<BR/><BR/>As for your response to Derek, it doesn't square with your own earlier comments. Quote: '<B>I am totally suggesting that we should not engage in "rational inquiry as to the [moral] justification of particular acts."</B>' Also, you've completed ignored the latter half of Derek's comment, which pre-empts your complaint:<BR/><BR/>"<I>None of this is what I have suggested or what I do. ZERO!</I>"<BR/><BR/>And of course <B>the same is true of us</B>, regarding your uncharitable misrepresentations of what moral justification is all about.<BR/><BR/>So yes, I can quite honestly say that my position is held for reasons of principle and not self-serving whitewashing. (I've never had to kill anyone in self-defence, or anything like that.) I simply think that moral absolutism is rank stupidity, and utterly indefensible. But if you want to give it a shot, go right ahead.<BR/><BR/>I should note though, that claiming "<I>situationist ethics... means really no ethics at all, just whatever suits me.</I>" is not a good start. (And you accuse Derek of straw-manning!? Remarkable.)<BR/><BR/>Let me be clear. In any given situation, there is one right answer as to what ought to be done -- and this answer is quite independent of what anybody happens to believe. If you think you should keep your hands clean and let the aliens blow up the world, then you are simply mistaken. No two ways about it. Certainly you can't do just "whatever suits" you. What utter rubbish.<BR/><BR/>But nor can you ignore all the subtleties of the situation, ignore all the potential consequences, and merely make a decision about what ought to be done based on some simplistic "ten commandments"-style list of do's and do not's. That's awfully simplistic -- and life (and ethics) <I>isn't</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125076083170740952005-08-26T13:08:00.000-04:002005-08-26T13:08:00.000-04:00Look, Derek, I don't mind that you defend rational...Look, Derek, I don't mind that you defend rational moral inquiry. But I do mind being mischaracterized and strawmanned. And I don't believe I need to tell you why I mind that, eh? Well, I mind moral justification for the same reason. It is not a principled way to argue. Period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125075923400581352005-08-26T13:05:00.000-04:002005-08-26T13:05:00.000-04:00>Moral reasoning is a tool, as such it can be used...>Moral reasoning is a tool, as such it can be used for different purposes. I think that it is no more or less prone to self servingness than any other tool for moral evalution.<<BR/><BR/>Except I have not spoken against moral reasoning, have I? I have spoken against moral justification.<BR/><BR/>>Consider the 'listen to what everyone says, then go with what seems right' method that you seem to suggest. Whatever it is I want to do, I can find some tradition somewhere (after all, we're not leaving any source out - not even wacky philosophers) that will say it's okay to do it in certain circumstances. So I look around, find such a tradition and convince myself that it's the one that 'seems right.' <<BR/><BR/>None of this is what I have suggested or what I do. ZERO!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125072031475144502005-08-26T12:00:00.000-04:002005-08-26T12:00:00.000-04:00Moral reasoning is a tool, as such it can be used ...Moral reasoning is a tool, as such it can be used for different purposes. I think that it is no more or less prone to self servingness than any other tool for moral evalution.<BR/><BR/>Consider the 'listen to what everyone says, then go with what seems right' method that you seem to suggest. Whatever it is I want to do, I can find some tradition somewhere (after all, we're not leaving any source out - not even wacky philosophers) that will say it's okay to do it in certain circumstances. So I look around, find such a tradition and convince myself that it's the one that 'seems right.' <BR/><BR/>Now of course you'll want to say that this doesn't give the method a fair shake, because people are supposed to be 'honest with themselves' about it, or somethign like that. But that's just what Richard and I have been saying in defense of the method of moral reasoning.<BR/><BR/>In fact, moral reasoning has a leg up in this regard. Human beings have a tendency to rationalize (in the pajorative sense) their actions, and whatever method of decision making we use, it is in danger of being incorporated into such a process of rationalization.<BR/><BR/>The special merit of moral reasoning in this regard, is that I can make explicit the reasons I am using to endorse my chosen course of action and make those reasons available for others to critique and debate. That allows them to respond, provide criticisms of my reasoning and offer reasons of their own. This provides a means to step outside of our own perspective and have our reasoning evaluated from another standpoint. This can never nullify the fact that it is ultimately from my own perspective that I will make any 'final' evaluations, but I think it does the best we can hope for in that regard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125059772570903302005-08-26T08:36:00.000-04:002005-08-26T08:36:00.000-04:00Yes, I am stating they are self-serving, because t...Yes, I am stating they are self-serving, because that is my moral intuition, and because I think it's rather obvious to anyone who really looks. If your self-interest is at stake, how can you argue with true openness? That is why Kant and Rawls have struggled with guidelines for such fair inquiry.<BR/><BR/>If you really want me to mount a full-blown argument, then I will, but first, I would like to ask you this: search your heart and your powers of reasoning, your clearest moral sense of it, and tell me that no matter how you turn it over in your mind, you do not see it as self-serving. If you do that, I will do the argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125057732278291202005-08-26T08:02:00.000-04:002005-08-26T08:02:00.000-04:00Richard, I am not interested in Swiss cheese ethic...Richard, I am not interested in Swiss cheese ethics. Carving out loopholes smells unprincipled to me, because it is self-serving -- whether used by the philosopher who, say, wants to show that a death penalty is "right" or by a wrong-doer who wants to be off the hook morally. If you think it is not self-serving, I would love to see you argue that.<BR/><BR/>Re-evaluation, as above, is not merely self-serving, it grants the same to everyone alike.<BR/><BR/>>2) It is wrong, always and everywhere, to kill another person when no other lives are on the line.<<BR/><BR/>Neat loophole for all the assorted terrorists and warmongers of the world. No, thanks.<BR/><BR/>Richard, here is the deal. If murder is right sometimes, and wrong sometimes, if robbery is right sometimes, and wrong sometimes, and so on down the line, then what is the point of the whole moral philosophy enterprise?! You can call it fancy names, but it all really boils down to situationist ethics, which means really no ethics at all, just whatever suits me. Bah, humbug. Might as well roll over and surrender outright.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1125010886035215812005-08-25T19:01:00.000-04:002005-08-25T19:01:00.000-04:00Compare the following:1) It is wrong, always and e...Compare the following:<BR/><BR/>1) It is wrong, always and everywhere, to kill another person.<BR/><BR/>2) It is wrong, always and everywhere, to kill another person when no other lives are on the line.<BR/><BR/>In re-evaluating the ethics of self-defence, I might move from universal rule #1 to universal rule #2. You would presumably call this "weaselish justification". But that's entirely uncharitable. It's not merely a "way to duck". One can actually reflect on matters and realize that absolutism is narrow minded and foolish, and that context matters.<BR/><BR/>You are simply <I>assuming</I> that all attempts at justification are self-serving, and that none are done in the honest spirit of open inquiry. You have no right to assume that. What do you say to the principled opponent of absolutism, who has reached their conclusions from evidence and not merely wishful thinking? All along you've simply <I>assumed</I> they're wrong. But you have provided no argument or reasons to think this is so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1124974744500601482005-08-25T08:59:00.000-04:002005-08-25T08:59:00.000-04:00Derek, I think I resolved the issue with re-evalua...Derek, I think I resolved the issue with re-evaluation we had discussed a while back. Re-evaluation is not a weaselish method, because it is applied across the board. If Huck decides that returning runaway slaves to their owners is not wrong across the board, then he is indeed off the hook and he can conclude that his remorse was misplaced and no amends are necessary. But it must be a change of heart and mind that applies to everyone, at any time and any place, not just Huck and Jim.<BR/><BR/>In re-evaluation, a person decides that x is not wrong, universally; that he simply had made a mistake about it. In justification, a person decides that while x is normally wrong, in this particular case or set of cases there is a loophole. That's what makes it so weaselish. A way to duck, without having to deal with the congnitive dissonance.<BR/><BR/>I am still looking into "blameless wrongdoing" for cases like killing in self-defense. It would recognize the tragic wrong of killing another human being, but would not demand anything more from the killer/victim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1124582499020434192005-08-20T20:01:00.000-04:002005-08-20T20:01:00.000-04:00What ethical system is there that doesn't imply th...What ethical system is there that <I>doesn't</I> imply that most killings are wrong? People agree with most claims of indirect utilitarianism, most claims of contractarianism, maybe even most claims of Kantianism if interpreted liberally enough. They all attempt to explain and build upon the same set of core moral intuitions. The question is how to generalize from these core cases to the contentious ones. I'm not sure how anything you've said helps with that, Vera.<BR/><BR/>(P.S. Your response to me above makes me think our positions are not so different as I'd previously thought. I'll hopefully clarify this a bit more in that forthcoming post I've promised.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1124568148887926442005-08-20T16:02:00.000-04:002005-08-20T16:02:00.000-04:00That still leaves 90% of what I claim in place. Wh...That still leaves 90% of what I claim in place. When was the last time you had to kill someone in self-defense, eh? (Never did claim eating meat is wrong.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1124554635275886852005-08-20T12:17:00.000-04:002005-08-20T12:17:00.000-04:00Derek, in response to your comments on the "recipe...Derek, in response to your comments on the "recipe", I agree it's implicit, and I think meta-ethics should make it explicit and have a closer look.<BR/><BR/>>On that second reading, I think that either the 'recipe' works or else nothing does.<<BR/><BR/>Do I smell a bifurcation fallacy? :-) The recipe from authority worked for many people for many centuries. Before that tho, there was a better recipe that said, consult the accummulated wisdom of your tribe as well as the spirit world (i.e. authority plus intuition). It worked for most of human history. To go strictly by reason is a newfangled invention. <BR/><BR/>As I think about it more, I see that to consider it further, we would have to look at the question itself that gives rise to the recipe. Some day, perhaps. This has been a great deal of fun, many thanks for making me think hard, and look at my ideas in a new light. I will keep checking this thread for any responses, and you can make them as long as you wish. I just wanted, I think, a sense of finishing up. But the arguments have actually gotten more interesting at the end of the thread, I think... :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1124552922609583252005-08-20T11:48:00.000-04:002005-08-20T11:48:00.000-04:00Richard, you are a pleasure to argue with, and I u...Richard, you are a pleasure to argue with, and I understand your position much better now. Your argument has one weakness I can see: if you agree to kill all the children under 10 in order to save the earth from being blown up, assuming the aliens are completely credible and trustworthy, of course – it will take only 10 consequentialists who each agree to wipe out one decade worth of humans, to wipe out the whole human race. The aliens do not need to lie, all they need to do is coordinate the matters so that all 10 consequentialists act in unison, more or less. Then the aliens chuckle to themselves and say, we wanted to be rid of them, and here, we did not even have to do it, they did it all to themselves! Way to go! And hey, creatures this stupid and this cruel to their own, the universe will not even miss them…<BR/><BR/>I very much believe that “there is no way to peace; peace is the way.” Similarly, the best way to make sure that the human race is not wiped out is do not do any wiping out myself, because myself is the only person I have real control over. (Which, I admit of course, is a different argument. :-)) I think this all impinges on the whole means/ends issue, and how the use of nasty means is a temptation that frequently backfires. A discussion for another time.<BR/><BR/>I have realized that we share the same pet peeve: the fetishization of moral purity. I could not agree more, and this is one of the reasons I am speaking against moral justification. Consider it this way: Kantians say, I refuse to do evil, no matter what, to stay morally pure. (They delude themselves, but that’s another story.) But consequentionalists say, ok, I am willing to do evil, as long as I can whitewash it and make it look good. How is that not an effort for misguided purity?! <BR/><BR/>Here is my way: If I have no choice and I must do evil (and I may torture someone in some situations, since you ask me), then I take full responsibility for the evil I have done (as well as, of course, for the good I accomplished). Evil remains evil, I am tainted, and I deal with it. To my mind, that is the only honest and responsible way to deal with evil. So my answer to your question, “is there any point along the continuum of evil where I would take a stand and say, no, that I will not allow?” is yes, I think there is such a point. But if I reach it, I do not pretend to moral purity via moral justification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1124491875654515292005-08-19T18:51:00.000-04:002005-08-19T18:51:00.000-04:00>"It is true that I do not have agreement on all t...>"It is true that I do not have agreement on all the specifics. But I think my system makes such agreement possible in principle. Whereas the system that is extant does not." <BR/>You keep saying this, but you never really describe how this consensus is to come about. Is the assumption that if we encourage people to look at everything and go with what seems right, we'll all come to the same answers about 'the essentials'?<<BR/><BR/>Derek: The agreement about essentials ALREADY EXISTS. When I say harm to life, breach of trust, and injustice are wrong, this does not elicit gasps of disbelief. People question me about what they see as exceptions to the rule, not about the premise itself. Even Richard admitted that “most murders are wrong.” The difficult cases, many of them contrived, some not, are the interesting part, and certainly can be used to test how the system works. Nevertheless, as I say, the broad agreement is already in place.<BR/><BR/>So the question is, how do we extend the agreement to the cases that are controversial and exceptional?<BR/><BR/>In real world, people who have not given up on being moral still do wrongs. Sometimes they fall into malevolence. More often, they do them because they mess up. But sometimes they do them because they have no other choice. The last instance was virtually defined out of existence by justificationist ethics. Unavoidable evil, like irrational numbers among the Pythagoreans, was not permitted to cloud the horizon (originally, it was the theologians who refused to consider that God would build unavoidable evil into our world). But defining something out of existence does not make it go away. It just makes it invisible for a time. And lately, finally, some people have become willing to admit that no matter how much they try to clean up a particularly nasty evil with justification, the stench remains. <BR/><BR/>Sophie’s Choice is an example of unavoidable evil. Once I had an argument about it with a religously orthodox person, and he insisted that according to his tradition Sophie should have refused to make such a choice and so escape the moral taint. So I said, you give both of your children to evil when evil asked for one, so that you remain unbesmirched? Besides, choosing not to choose is a choice also. Sophie’s Choice does not have a moral option. It only has three immoral options, and she had to take one of them. It does not even have a lesser evil the way Kant’s murderer puzzle does. There are two horrible evils and a third even more horrible evil. The existence of unavoidable evil drives home the necessity of dealing with evil directly, at least in such cases.<BR/><BR/>If justification is not an option, evil ALWAYS has to be dealt with AS EVIL. You say that proxy-killing heinous murderers (capital punishment) is wrong, a state-sanctioned murder that brings into its scythe-sweep not only the guilty but also the innocent? Absolutely. You say that sticking them in prison where they are virtually robbed of any chance to redeem their life, where they can murder additional victims among inmates and prison workers and where they can get out and murder more people on the outside, and where they are a lifetime drain on all of us, that is wrong? I wholeheartedly agree! Both are terrible evils. There is no good here to choose from. So as a society we are trapped in Catch 22, damned if we do, damned if we don’t. The solution? We stop fighting each other about which evil to pick! They BOTH suck! After all, that’s why we call them EVILS! Instead of justificatin’, start brainstormin’. Once people realize that they really do not want either wrong and are united in their opposition to such awful choices, you’d be surprised at the good will and energy that is freed up to deal with the issue at hand. By tackling these evils together, we can craft something that is less imperfect than the choices we were fighting about. And the next generation can look at our solution, and say, hey, we can do even better than that. That, to my mind, is a realistic goal, and a goal worthy of a good society; would you agree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com