Moral Bankruptcy?
It seems like there is always a point in someone's life where they are faced with a moral dilemma. At what point are you just as guilty as the culprit?
So in terms of a robbery or a murder, people can be charged with 'accessory to larceny' or 'accessory to murder' [maybe i have been watching too many episodes of Law and Order], but these are tangible acts that have impacted people. But when your moral standing on an issue is in direct conflict with someone elses and you don't do anything about it (implicitly condoning it), does this mean you are aiding and abetting the guilty parties?
Running through a scenario...suppose you know somebody who is cheating on their spouse, are you guilty if you assist in helping them meet up and hide every time they rendez-vous?
I'm a believer that you are just as guilty as the people having the affair. I mean, if you provided a murderer with a gun you are practically a murderer! How is this any different?
Then...to add some complexity, should your decision to protect someone or not change if they have a terminal illness?
So in terms of a robbery or a murder, people can be charged with 'accessory to larceny' or 'accessory to murder' [maybe i have been watching too many episodes of Law and Order], but these are tangible acts that have impacted people. But when your moral standing on an issue is in direct conflict with someone elses and you don't do anything about it (implicitly condoning it), does this mean you are aiding and abetting the guilty parties?
Running through a scenario...suppose you know somebody who is cheating on their spouse, are you guilty if you assist in helping them meet up and hide every time they rendez-vous?
I'm a believer that you are just as guilty as the people having the affair. I mean, if you provided a murderer with a gun you are practically a murderer! How is this any different?
Then...to add some complexity, should your decision to protect someone or not change if they have a terminal illness?
Labels: morals