| Sure, they try to rationalize. However, they are often unsuccessful, except in the sense of continuing to see- saw around inconclusive arguments. I agree that there is a difference between rules as generalities and what is right under circumstances, and that is the entering wedge of an honest moral dilemma, as we entertain the possibility that that we can set aside the rule in the instance. But when we choose without having resolved the dilemma, and choose to "follow our bliss", we give up the protection of conscience, and leave ourselves exposed to the possibility of having diminished the standards by which we hope to live. For example, there are possible justifications for lying, but the lower you set the bar, the closer you become to just being a liar. The bar should be set high, even if sometimes you might legitimately spare yourself grief. Similarly, I go out of my way to hold back on losing my temper, because I would rather suffer some abuse than become an abuser. (I will, however, not put up with ANYthing). Of course, there is a class of things where drawing the line matters more than the specific transgression, as in the examples I gave, so that the main issue is the development of habits amounting to character. On the other hand, there are things sufficiently momentous that I would not like at all to be on the wrong side, as, for example, homicide. I would hope that someone in conflict about killing, not clearly justified by circumstance, would choose not to do it. The consequences of error are too large, and there are no good take backs...... |
