We cannot let the Law and Justice to return to power in the individual of another puppet, Nawrocki. due to the fact that with his veto, evil will come back.
Even the PiS admits that during its regulation he broke the law and even the constitution, but allegedly did so for our sake.
And many have convinced it. For who of us did not do any evil for good reasons?
And this is the eternal problem of moral philosophy, ethics. due to the fact that doing evil for good reasons is simply a moral paradox, frequently referred to as "the end sanctifies means" and as any paradox raises controversy.
For example, specified examples are a lie to defend individual or force in the name of the greater good, as in the case of the revolution.
Or simpler: Robin Hood steals rich to aid the mediocre – good intentions, illegal methods.
Kant, criticized specified an approach, claiming that the morality of the act depends on its compliance with universal principles, not intentions. Mill, on the another hand, felt that evil could be justified if the effects were more beneficial than the damage.
The problem is the subjectivity of "good". Who's to justice that? Doing evil? How about him? How about most of the population?
For example, erstwhile most people vote to kill redheads, and even 1 redhead, that would be good?
This subjectivity analyses Dostoevsky's "crime and punishment" - shows how good intentions can lead to tragedy. large work.
And as we examine the actions of the governments of the Law and Justice, we will have no doubt: the evil done by the Law and Justice is evil and all justifications, rationalization is worth shit.
Let's go to the election and slam.
Even the PiS admits that during its regulation he broke the law and even the constitution, but allegedly did so for our sake.
And many have convinced it. For who of us did not do any evil for good reasons?
And this is the eternal problem of moral philosophy, ethics. due to the fact that doing evil for good reasons is simply a moral paradox, frequently referred to as "the end sanctifies means" and as any paradox raises controversy.
For example, specified examples are a lie to defend individual or force in the name of the greater good, as in the case of the revolution.
Or simpler: Robin Hood steals rich to aid the mediocre – good intentions, illegal methods.
Kant, criticized specified an approach, claiming that the morality of the act depends on its compliance with universal principles, not intentions. Mill, on the another hand, felt that evil could be justified if the effects were more beneficial than the damage.
The problem is the subjectivity of "good". Who's to justice that? Doing evil? How about him? How about most of the population?
For example, erstwhile most people vote to kill redheads, and even 1 redhead, that would be good?
This subjectivity analyses Dostoevsky's "crime and punishment" - shows how good intentions can lead to tragedy. large work.
And as we examine the actions of the governments of the Law and Justice, we will have no doubt: the evil done by the Law and Justice is evil and all justifications, rationalization is worth shit.
Let's go to the election and slam.
