Eff's Rambles (Archive)


On the Subject of Moral Judgements Upon Past Choices.

Normally, from my experience, some one will bring into question the fairness of negatively criticising a choice made in the past, by making a reference to the context of the time of the decision. I'm among such persons guilty of that sometimes vague questioning of how objective a critic is being. When the reference is specific, it might be correct to say that the context issue is meant as a direct defense as opposed to an implied one, depending on the subjective perception of one present at the debate.

But vagueness is incomplete; a suggestion that there might have been justification for a past decision because of existing reasons and hypothetical ones, with our without a basis in the reality of the time, does not prove that the decision was the right one. As to whether not there is such a thing as a "right" decision, that is a concern which I might not be able to address.

Perhaps what should be of concern to one criticising a past decision, is if it the criticism is morally consistent.

And here lies a major problem. Is it a moral code, absolutely applied, that is best, or is it better to use circumstantial rationalization?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click