LOL! That is such a good point. SUCH a good point!
"Justice was served [due to the fact] that the prosecutor did a good job."
Murali, look at your statement. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you can correct me if I am.
jus·tice (jsts)
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. (a) The principle of moral rightness; equity.
(b) Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. (a) The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
(b) Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason.
Let's assume that OJ and Tyson were both guilty. Neither of us were there, so we can't really be sure, but let's assume they were.
Your argument [it appears] is that an attorney who defended them both did a good job in the first case because he won freedom for his client, and in the second case justice was served because the prosecutor did a better job than that same attorney...therefore implying that the attorney failed to do a good job.
My point is this: if you look at the definition of justice, you'll see that if OJ was really guilty then he did not receive fair treatment and his due reward.
If the attorney knew that OJ was guilty and got him off in spite of that fact, then by two definitions of the word "justice", the attorney is immoral and corrupt. Morally and ethically, an argument can be made that the attorney is scum, even though he is "doing his job."
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the law takes precedence over moral rightness in the one case, and that moral rightness takes precedence over the law in the other case. You can't do that and win an argument, because is not logical.
You are a liberal, and I am a conservative. The interesting thing about it is that we agree on many, many things. If a person, or a group of persons, is oppressed for some reason, and for such a time, as it becomes unbearable to them, then they will revolt. This is a stone-cold fact of life. At some point, they have a moral and ethical right to do so. If an oppressor takes the law into his own hands, or abuses the rights of the person or people he wants to oppress, then he is wrong, and he is not honorable, and he should fall.
I think we can easily agree that anyone that does not agree with the above facts is morally and ethically wrong.
The question is, IMHO, at what point does the moral and ethcial obligation take precedent over the law? At what point does a person say, "The law is wrong, and I am going to break the law because I am morally and ethically right"?
Once that question is answered, the next question is, "In what way am I going to ensure that the law is corrected so this does not happen again"?
I think that's all we have to argue about! I believe that lying, cheating, stealing, and other forms of moral corruption do not help one's case. In other words, I believe that the ends do not justify the means. I believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish anything. I believe that a criminal, by his very nature, assumes that everyone else is either a criminal like him, or a fool that can be duped. I believe that it is very easy for a criminal to agree to someone else's criminal activity; much easier than for someone who is not a criminal. And I also believe that it is possible to see something good and worthwhile in every single human being on this planet, and that not everyone is a criminal.
I believe that looking at what we agree upon, and using that as a basis for making things better for us, is a better way to attack the problems that surround us than to look at what we do not agree upon and using that to try and enforce my will on you, or allowing you to enforce your will on me. I believe that if I appeal to the good in someone, he will respond in kind, and if I appeal to the bad in someone, he will respond in kind.
It is my humble personal opinion that the Democrats in this election have made it their policy to appeal to what is bad in people. I think it is a gross tactical, moral, political, and ethical mistake. I think they are doing it because they are being guided by criminals. That's just my personal opinion, and I could be wrong, and I certainly hope that I am.
I hope and wish that you and I can simply address what is good and right already, and work together to change the things that are not right. And I hope that we can agree that the underlying concept of justice can guide us, and not the underlying concept that we are either criminals or morons.
Now, I really have to take off, I'm late for a meeting. |
