[ExI] pussy riot case

[Stefano Vaj]

On 22 August 2012 17:11, Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:

> Who take the oath freely must foresee all consequences and be responsible
> for his choices.
> But independently from his oath, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning knew the laws
> and what he risked.
>

I must say that I irrespective of any sympathy I may have for his position,
I fully agree with that.

I can easily imagine a number of circumstances where I would gladly commit
a crime, but this does not allow me to ignore the legal consequences.

 In other words, do you think that divorce, for example, should never
> be allowed under any circumstances?  That there is never a moral
> obligation to violate an oath under any circumstances, even if you
> find that the oath would lead you to do evil things?
>

An oath is an oath is an oath.

Assuming that we are are morally allowed to make unconditional oaths, we
are morally obliged to respect them, and your guilt, if any, originates
from the original oath, not from the compliance therewith - an entirely
different thing is whether the law provides for sanctions and remedies in
the event of a breach, or not (as in the case of a divorce by consent).

We feel like breaching our freely accepted obligations? Fine, but to take
the moral high ground in doing so seems indeed self-indulgent.

Let us just say that you may have economic or political or personal motives
to do so and accordingly you do not care.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120823/f782c46e/attachment.html>