pbrower2a
Atlas Star
Posts: 26,875
|
 |
« on: February 27, 2009, 01:27:15 AM » |
|
|
« edited: February 28, 2009, 11:06:38 AM by pbrower2a »
|
Moderation is not a valid position if the 'moderation' is a choice between two horrible positions and especially between good and evil.
"Shall we hang this person known to have been convicted of a questionable crime under questionable circumstance, or shall we burn this person at the stake? Hanging is gentler, and we might as well show some decency."
Even if one can accept the death penalty as an appropriate means of punishing those who have committed horrible crimes, execution in the wake of shabby legal process is unforgivable. The right procedure would be to retry the person convicted, and of course ensure that even if capital punishment is abolished that it is used only for the most horrific crimes -- like murder.
"Do I take nothing from the till, do I take one $20 bill, or do I take two of them? Stealing $40 is worse, so taking the $20 is a reasonable compromise."
No, it isn't. Larceny is immoral at any level, whether it is filching pennies or filching millions.
Goodness is always the right position. One needs a compelling reason for making a compromise with any evil.
|
Poll
