There are two basic reasons not to do something that is potentially detrimental: the true ethics of the action, or the consequences to the action. Is not doing something because of the consequencies less ethical? Or, more aptly, are the reasons why you do or do not do something important in judging your own ethics?
Ethical delimmas are not delimmas at all -- they are just rational arbitrations of the situation. Most are complex problems, with complex consequences.
Along the same lines -- is thinking of something but not doing it just as bad as the act itself?
The answer, of course, is no -- if it were, that would preclude any rational decision making.
Would one rather have no questions to answer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment