Doing good is important. Sometimes, you want do do a lot of good but feel like you can only do a little good. That’s okay! Do what you can.
Sometimes you may think it’s okay to be naughty, because you know other kids who are very naughty all the time. But it’s still not okay to be naughty, even a little bit.
Your point remains unmade. If it was a defense of moral relativism, the arguments don’t support the conclusion. If it was something else, I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say.
That’s not so much “lesser evil” as “achievable good”.
Tom-A-to, tom-AH-to.
Moral relativism is consequentialist nonsense, and like most consequentialist nonsense, easy to abuse to justify evil acts. I can’t agree to that.
Back in the day, philosophers would stand in the public square and debate any one as an equal.
Today, ‘philosophers’ hide behind specialized lingo only they understand.
And don’t say I could look it up. Einstein said that if a scientist couldn’t explain what he was doing to a five year old the scientist was a fraud.
Okay, five-year-old:
Doing good is important. Sometimes, you want do do a lot of good but feel like you can only do a little good. That’s okay! Do what you can.
Sometimes you may think it’s okay to be naughty, because you know other kids who are very naughty all the time. But it’s still not okay to be naughty, even a little bit.
deleted by creator
My father is going to beat up my mom if he finds out that she took his drug money to buy food.
Are you saying I shouldn’t lie? That it’s more important to tell the truth than to protect my mom from a beating?
False dichotomy, those aren’t your only choices.
Further, lying isn’t automatically wrong. Deceiving or otherwise inhibiting a hostile, evil entity is virtuous.
“Lying isn’t automatically wrong.”
Thanks for making my point for me.
Your point remains unmade. If it was a defense of moral relativism, the arguments don’t support the conclusion. If it was something else, I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say.