I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Saturday, May 7, 2011

malum in se

This morning it was reported that the UN wants to determine if the raid on Bin Laden’s compound was conducted legally. In this case legally can be defined as following UN guidelines for addressing terrorism.



As irritating as that news was (at first) I will freely admit that I am an adamant believer that if we agree to rules (laws) we should obey the rules. That having been said, I expect to be entirely dismissive of the UN findings or to state if differently I am glad we did, period.



There is obviously a chink in my resolve to consistently follow my beliefs on enforcing rules at all times. In this case I make no apology, but here is my question. Can a deed or action ever be so monstrously wrong “in and of itself” that it is justifiable to not consider the rules when addressing that action?

1 comment:

  1. I think the part about "not consider the rules when addressing that action" is too vague for me to give an unqualified "yes" here.

    To say yes could, for example, be construed to approve of responding to 9-11 in the manner that a liberal friend was certain (on that day) that Bush would take: turn some country into glass.

    However, I think that some actions are so bad that one can imagine taking some normally unacceptable measures in response.

    ReplyDelete