"People need to justify every move they make if they are rational. Otherwise, it (justification) doesn't matter to them or it is done through "feeling" rather than thought. I've explained how "conscience" follows culture, belief, and values. I can't give you understanding and I'm not going to try too much harder..."
Perspectives follow culture, belief, and values to some extent. To a greater extent they are individual according to personal experience. There is also a universality of conscience where conscious awareness of morality is one thing. Of course in court there are two sides to any dispute. In practicality there are as many perspectives as there are people willing to look at an event. But in a court room there is usually one issue being marked as good or bad and everyone agrees to the foundation of goodness or badness under review. The badness of a heinous crime is universally agreed upon based on some principle of goodness or badness. Whether or not an accused person is to be found guilty of a particularly heinous act is subject to available evidence, the circumstances, the perspectives, the biases, the foibles, and imperfections of those tasked with judging the event, be it the cloaked person sitting on high or those of us in the peanut gallery... and even when a person is 'found guilty' we may find on further review, the finding does not stand. Do we conclude there was no right or wrong act or only that we were not able to determine what it was in this particular circumstance? |
