[lit-ideas] Re: Inner Moral Law

Andy: Without the external law, there is no moral question. Therefore, it's the moral law that keeps society functioning, not the, still alleged, inner moral law.

Eric: But see, Andy, it could go the other way. You could be in the middle of something completely legal that strikes you as immoral. In that case, you might act against the external law (legality) because of something more seriously wrong (inner moral sense). Most corporate whistleblowers act from such conflict.

Take the Bushista judge who opined that torture was legal. Most people know there's something wrong with that unless there is a higher priority. But assume there is a higher priority, like defeating a nuclear attack.

That throws us back onto our inner moral sense...is torture of an individual justified if it saves twenty million lives? Yes, but how can we be certain that this particular act of torture will save those lives? How certain do we need to be before torturing? And if we knew the attack was real, but didn't know which particular individual out of 1,000 to torture? Should we torture them all?

Lots of personal assumptions go into the mix, i.e., utilitarianism, the belief that pain is a bad thing, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: