Quote:
|
In conclusion, morals are ficticious
|
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
That's from "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt. The discussion is between Thomas Moore and his son in law Roper.
Switch morals, and laws...and that's about my point. We practice an imperfect and often unsatisfying morality, even when it protects the repugnant...because the alternative is the only thing that's worse. Indulging the fantasy that we are not inexorably harmed by the damage we do to others can only lead tragedy.
Protecting this man doesn't sound like much of a laudible goal...but if the alternative is to declare him non-human because he happens to be poor and aflicted with a disease...then i find it hard to fathom that we have not endangered ourselves.