Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: laura's axioms
Message-ID: <3746@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 03:29:45 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3746
Posted: Thu Apr  5 03:29:45 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Apr-84 06:27:31 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 14

The question of balance in moral decisions is not a "lazy" way of thinking
as Laura would have us believe.  On the contrary, it requires one to evaluate
each case carefully, judging relative merits (such as a judge does), rather
than applying rules in a mechanical matter.  Though I am no jurist, it seems
that such is the difference between merely following the letter of the law and
striving for genuine justice.  Yes, we *start* with written laws, but they
are only a starting point in a process of balancing considerations (and a
costly and anything-but-lazy process at that).

As for greyness, past articles have clearly shown the multi-dimensional,
conflicting-good situation.  The one-dimensionality suggested by a
white-grey-black spectrum is misleading and I think it has misled Laura.

p. rowley, U. Toronto