but wait please,
"no decisions"? how did we make that leap to indecison from priorities and morality? what do setting priorities and seeking a moral model have to do with "no decisions" -I'm not following the "no decisions" point at all -
unless, are you suggesting that without this singular "good moral code" that all "decision making" comes to a halt? all priorities are lost? In that case, I would say we only to need to look to Washington DC to dispel that -
but what's most interesting to me here is your
statement -
I guess I'm much less black and white, because frankly, I see your way as extremely "black and white" - one "good moral code" with no in between? - and still, we've yet to address whose "good moral code" is then the applicable model here?
and
re:
what about all the people who DO break the laws
well it seems to me, in the particular moment they believed their choice was worth the consequence - I would back that up by offering "repeat offenders" who make the choice again, as example-re: I make my decisions based on what I think is right,
and that would be my point precisely ...by your moral code - not mine, or anyone elses - but there are many who wouldn't agree with your decisions, based on their own moral code -
re: We don't say things to hurt people's feelings, not because it's against the law, but because it's hurtful to someone else -
and I would argue again, this would be both a choice and relative-
as I, would prefer to say what I have to say to someone directly (even if they didn't like it) than to have it affect the realtionship, or to say it behind their back
so then which is the more moral choice? -
well that depends on whose moral code is being used as the measure - yours or mine-