Action vs. Omission: Part Two

Action vs. Omission, what really is the issue here?

To answer this question, one must first inquire into the many perspectives that can be taken. Is such a question really, as the law would see it, a case of black and white morality, a case of universalizability, of absolutism, of certainty? Or is to take such an approach to this question wrong?

Wrong .. how?

Maybe it is wrong in the sense that to assume an unconditional morality is to apply the same rules where the same rules cannot be applied. We've been through this before, but it can never hurt to be reminded of a rule so fundamental to an individual existence. That to apply a moral universalizability to a population is to reduce all the people to a common denominator. It doesn't seem like a huge logical jump to then argue that everyone in that population would be subjected to the same moral fiber.

Maybe it's wrong because of the idea that the application of such a rule influences everyone on such a grand scale. And if you were under the influence of a rule applied to a serial rapist and a kitten puncher, you'd well hope that the rule is infallible and fair beyond the thinnest thread of doubt - those deciding the rules, they'd better get it right; for the application of such a rule demands no room for any doubt. But oh, then the miserly and asinine question gets raised: Who gets to say what is right? But is it not a question that is all too relevant in this subject matter? For if there cannot be someone to propose a definitive, absolute, and truthful rule, then how can there exist an unconditional for a population to live under.

Or maybe, I'm so obsessed with the idea of being an individual, of breaking away from conformity of a crowd, that the idea of being under the same rule of a whole population sickens me, because I think it unfair to be judged under the same rule as, cruelly put, an idiot.

So what then, if we cannot judge the question of morality, and in this case by extension, action vs. inaction, through unconditional rule, then what are we to judge it by? I propose that we then judge it as a case of "lesser of two evils". That both actions are evil, but one action more so than the other.

Part Three up soon, maybe later tonight. If it's not up within two days, then I hope all you readers have a lovely Christmas break, and for those readers back in Australia, I hope you empty your wallets during Boxing Day. -smiley face-.

Seriously though, have fun, party hard, but you know, try not to pull all the borderline gay shit in your bouts of drunken "hey, wouldn't it be funny if we stuck a carrot in Larry's ass while he's sleeping" madness.

I'll be kicking it hot in Vietnam, mostly due to the weather.