|
interpreting this as a question of whether one person is as ultimately good as another, in spite of the actions that they carried out throughout their life, i would weigh motive and circumstance against morality in each case. however, that morality is my own though i would like to think it consists of principles basic enough that all good people would accept it, but then there's a sort of catch 22, that my idea of a good person would accept the criteria for what it means to be a good person.
anyway, i see a difference between someone who kills for profection, for fun, out of passion, for drugs, or for money, but i see similarities between them all, apart from the obvious killing part and less easily explained. and i would consider some of them better than others depending on the reason they did it, regardless of whether or not i agreed with the outcome.
truly though, even though id consider some people morally superior or inferior to others, i think fundamentally theyre operating on what theyve got. but given the task to select half of the population of the world to keep while the other half was strangely removed, i would find it hard to do it randomly, but i would feel that was right.
|