Originally posted by Dell Gines:
I want to toss these out to my fellow religious and philosophical thinkers in here.
From Batman Begins
Batman tells Raus Al Gol his former teacher
"I am not going to kill you, but I sure don't have to save you" as Raus plunged to his firey death.
Question: Is there a moral difference between killing or murdering someone, and knowing that they are about to be killed or murdered, and you have the power to 'save them' and you don't?
Passive aggression is simply a different method of Overt aggression....
This makes me think though:
What if you have the power to stop someone but you know they are on a relentless pursuit to commit suicide?
Can we substitute harm for murder? Can you ever have the power (influence) to "save" someone from themselves?
Can you ever really know whether you truly have the power or not until you have actually saved them?
From that new show on BET S.O.B. last night
The fake priest ask the woman, "are you celibate" she says, "I don't practice celibacy", then later she criticized the priest for doing behavior that she does, but doesn't believe he should do because he is a priest.
Question: Is it moral hypocrisy to hold someone to a standard of moral behavior that you yourself do not hold yourself to? IE is it wrong to criticize a pastor for adultery or fornication, if you are doing the same thing?
Just some thoughts...
I always think people confuse the meaning of "contradiction" with "hypocrisy"... a contradictory action or statement can be benign, no malice or ill will... a change of heart, or new information that causes/forces/ influences a new direction.... it is simply the opposite of what has taken place... hypocrisy seems to denote and speak to one's motivation to be deceitful...
In the case of a preacher who preaches abstinence... but resists fornication and due to overwhelming circumstances (iono.. like, shoot.. erm.. what if the perfect fine woman jumps on him or something- iono.. don't ask can't think of a scenario right now).. but for argument sake say he indulges his weakness, but has resisted and feels guilty all signs that he is struggling and trying to restrain himself... It makes him weak... and a poor role model.... and possibly not fit to be a leader.... but if his motive was not to purposefully indulge in something he's forbidden, I'm not sure I would label him a hypocrite... just a sinner (to use the Christian term)
For the accuser, the same standard applies.. though the outcome may be different...
I suppose for me its a matter of intent and motivation...
Okay, Dell, that was all long winded.. sorry!