Gene Callahan offered the following assertion:
“If a moral person breaks the rules, it is to produce a more moral, not a less moral, outcome.”
I replied:
To break a rule of morality is to do something “bad.” So what you are saying is that it can be “good” to be “bad.”
That is self-contradictory, and all self-contradictory statements are false.
What’s your opinion?
For example, was it “good” to bomb Hiroshima, killing innocent babies, in order to produce the supposedly “more moral” outcome of preventing the deaths of invading U.S. soldiers?
Advertisement
Bestquest, you’re just not a very honest person. I never offered anything remotely like Hiroshima as an example of what I was talking about.
So you would agree that Harry Truman was not “a moral person”?