Dear Pellius,
I have far too much respect for your intellect and insight to ever infer that you find no difference between the Nazi camp soldier.
One distinction between the Nazi soldier and the criminal defense attorney is that the defense attorney does not have to take "orders."
I choose which cases to accept and with that, comes the burden of having to practice the "moral relativism" to which CaptainFreedom alludes.
I am not sure I feel I have to "answer" to the system except for the fact that I can't break a rule. I certainly have a reputation for fighting the
government and the judges and perhaps getting really close to "the line." but I've never been found to have crossed the line or broken any rule.
No one truly answers only to himself. We are all cast into this horrendous play called "life" and the bureaucracy of it all has each and every one
of us answering to someone. The frustrating aspect is that many times, we are answering to those who are less efficient and less intelligent than
ourselves and this impediment to completing tasks and finding optimum success can prove quite frustrating. We are all making "excuses" to exclude
ourselves from some acceptable rule, law (obeying the speed limit), societal norm or convention, etc. Do the justifications make us less noble? Do they
hurt anyone else? The many levels of self-defense our egos have internally constructed in order to shield us from " the thousand natural shocks" force
us to excuse ourselves from some of the rules or conventions in order to succumb to our predilections and desires.
Not only do I not completely trust my own nature but I sure as hell don't trust the nature of others, and that includes the added "security" or "protection"
the State offers me from others whose nature would serve only to harm my own well-being (I have 19,000 rounds of ammunition here at my house).
No doubt Russell was a genius but it is a bit easy to philosophize from an ivory tower or some podium at Columbia University. I am not sure he put
any of his concerns, doubts or theories into practice in his own life. It's one thing to say something should be done on a moral level and yet, it is entirely
another thing to be put into that position of moral incertitude and have to make the "correct" choice.
Life really is unfair and whatever injustice I may prevent, here and there, is no excuse for people to take matters into their own hands because they are
"certain" they are correct. I'm not sure I give it too much thought whether I am right or wrong on these issues. I prefer to do it and say that at least some
of the proceeds of my actions are helping others, not just my bank.
I am a terribly flawed human being and no one should adopt my personal moral code. I have certain weaknesses not all of society would accept so I have
to balance all of that with my own sense of "morality." I have hurt people (emotionally) and living with that is not always easy.
An individual is a democracy of disparate voices.
I'm doing the best that I can.
Harley
Dear Harley,
Thank you so much for taking so much time in addressing this issue, but again, don't feel obligated to do so as I know it is time consuming and nothing really gets resolved. I just prefer clarity over agreement. Just being clear on one's position and how they came to that position.
In one sense, we have to answer to so many people. You mentioned earlier in this thread that even though you own your business you have many bosses to answer to. But just like the Nazi soldiers, you make the decision if you will listen to them. So at the end of the day when you look at yourself in the mirror it is you that are ultimately responsible for the decisions and actions that you make.
Bertrand Russell may have been an aristocrat but that, in and of itself, does not invalidate his statement. After all, the old adage, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" did not just come out of nowhere.
And of course in real life we have to take into account the will of the people and society and what they decide what is the law and how it should be enforced as well as those who are put in charge to determine and carry out those laws. But that does not relieve a person from being personally responsible for the actions he carried out. If one follows the law but knowingly gets a murderer off did he do a good thing? Did he do the right thing? You mentioned that you don't give much thought to right and wrong. Do you think it is better not to think in terms of right and wrong but rather just legal and illegal?
Is it enough to say to yourself that you followed the law? A law that society, the majority, has determined is just? What do you say to yourself?
“Atticus, you must be wrong…” said Scout.
“How’s that?”
“Well, most folks seem to think they’re right and you’re wrong…”
“They’re certainly entitled to think that, and they’re entitled to full respect for their opinions,” said Atticus, “but before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”
-- Harper Lee,
To Kill A Mockingbird
