The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Religion & Culture / Christian Fools
|Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini||Date: 10/2/2012 1:45 PM|
|Author: Frydaze1||Number: 183144 of 196904|
I'm saying I think the rules would change if there was.
Ah. Yes, that would be an issue. Any time there is a shortage of things necessary for survival, morality gets a little stretchy.
Example (not based on fact): My neighbor's mother was diabetic. There are vials insulin in his house. His mother is dead and doesn't need them anymore. No one in the house needs them. I am diabetic and can't afford (or the area is out of) insulin. Is it moral for him to refuse to give me the insulin?
Preserving life is, to me, one of the strongest moral guidelines. But can I actually say it is immoral for him to not give me something I want or need, but which I have to right to?
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|