Deep question, Lee; not an easy one. One who suffers injury must have the right of redress, be that restitution or retribution, or else we live in Hobbes's state of nature. The question of balance and proportionality is the proper remit of the law courts and great minds. Where the injury in question falls outside the purview of the collective good or the legal framework to that end, morality and values must act to constrain the individual in respect of balance and proportionality; that is why it's so very vital that we understand what we do when we tinker with the foundations and structures of a society's moral compass.
Personally, i've always felt that emotions are the fuel for the directed mind. On Aug 12, 1:28 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > So as we should all know we have had quite a week of it here in the > UK. Facebook and many other web places have been inundated with all > sorts of sillyness. > > Calls to bring back national service, calls to evict those found > guilty of the rioting and looting, calls to stop their benifits. I > have witnessed some of my good good friends spew out all mannor of > sillyness in their anger. > > I have procliamed in the past that all questions of morality are > better served sans emotions and I see much this week that has only > firmed this view. > > In order to discover though the validity of this thought tell me do > you agree, or not and why? People of ME sway my opinion with your > wise words. > > What good can come of deciding upon a course of action whilst holding > onto your anger? > > I ask of course as a self confessed recovered angry man.
