When people argue ethics or morality, they often try to prove some actions "evil" or "bad," while asserting other actions are "good." (For example, Mark Foley's text messages are "bad." Jimmy Carter's efforts supporting Democracy are "good.")
Doesn't this distance us from the actual results of the action and promote black-or-white thinking?
Wouldn't we have a more intelligent conversation if we said an action was "Helpful" or "Harmful," and then were able to articulate what caused us to say so?
2006-10-08
15:59:15
·
9 answers
·
asked by
NHBaritone
7