Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Hey, Mephisto. Don't mean to be a nag, but I'm wondering if you could clarify what you mean here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Well, I think it's certainly possible for the taking of a life to be considered less moral than not taking it, yet still supporting it as "the lesser of two evils".
|
I asked:
Quote:
This is the part I didn't understand. Lesser of two evils? What's the greater evil?
The way I read it, the greater evil would be 'not taking it' (and that's what I believe), but that would contradict the first half of your sentence.
|
|
Sure thing. I thought I had responded, so my apologies for this oversight.
The taking of a life is less moral than taking a life. Agreed?
If one had a choice, between killing and not killing, then not killing is the more moral path.
However, in some circumstances, self defence, a just war, preventing an immediate threat etc, one may be able to state that killing is necessary. However, it is still immoral. Killing is always immoral. But in these circumstances it is the "lesser of two evils", because failing to act, failing to "kill" may result in much greater harm.
Neither choice is moral, but one is "less evil" (less immoral if you will), than the other.
Does this make sense? I hope I've explained myself.
Mr Mephisto