fetchface wrote:honorentheos wrote:During a period of being a poor student I lived next to a couple who were, frankly, criminals. They were supporting a drug habit and spoke about crime as if it were just another job a person might have. They had a son who was about 5 or 6 and he spoke of being a criminal as if they were his heroes and he was clearly being raised with a moral foundation that didn't match one that society as a whole would get on board with let alone find sympathetic. I felt bad for the kid but no degree of sympathy changes the facts that what he was being exposed to and taught to value was unethical. His upbringing was unethical. Everything about that situation left me wondering about how parents can be such screw ups.in their kids lives and made a lasting impression on me. But one of those impressions included the fact his story is hardly unique. And while I feel sympathy for the kid, the law is all the more important for being both a constraint as well as a disincentive acting against those forces.
Put bluntly, at some point you have to pick a lane or be a dangerous driver yourself.
I fail to see the relevance that an example of conscious wrongdoing without even a perceived higher benefit has to any argument I have made.
Look, if you think that LDS leaders are just conscious deceivers then you are attacking this problem from a very different angle than I am and you are going to come to a very different result. That is okay. I can respect that. But don't pretend you are engaging my argument with examples like this.
You fail to share their perspective on what is the higher benefit but frankly they did see one and would defend it in similar terms. They didn't see what they were doing as wrong. Illegal? Sure. But not wrong. It was society at large that was in the wrong and oppressing them. You reject their belief because you recognize their perspective violates fundamental moral behaviors as codified in law is all. It also helps that you don't have an emotional attachment to them. Like others watching this thread and scratching their heads over your and Kish's insistence the perogitive of the church mitigates the harm so who are we to judge, you recognize in the example above the need to maintain a non-relativist moral position. It didn't matter to you they find a higher purpose - making a living and feeding their family/drug habit - because you recognized there is a fundamental wrong in their behavior that matters to you.
Being consistent with your moral position matters. Even if you can acknowledge the person you see as behaving immorally or unethically has reasons they believe make it helpful rather than harmful according to their worldview. You can see how it works here. That's how it should work everywhere including when one evaluates the ethics of the LDS Church's behavior.