Is non-participation ethical?

You guys tend to email me great insights when I do posts like this. (thanks)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
This entry was posted in philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Is non-participation ethical?

  1. Stripe says:

    Life is full of regrets, which is okay, as long as they aren’t yours.

  2. Jason says:

    That depends on the nature of the good & bad. Churchill was an obnoxious drunk, but on the balance I would say he did far more good that bad. Hitler was vegetarian and was good with animals…

  3. James Oakley says:

    Great discussion with my high school classes – half way through, changed “deeds” to “grades…”

  4. Scott Booth says:

    Neither is better or worse; one seems to be more active. In either case, ones good deeds never negate the bad.

  5. Michael says:

    B, invariably.

    Evil isn’t a thing, but absence of good. (Like darkness is just absence of light; you can’t shine darkness into a room.) Thus, evil doesn’t “cancel out” good the way good cancels out evil.

    etc, etc

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>