|
You're postulating that Will promote a desireable end by passively allowing an immoral means toward achieving that end. Regardless of the justness of the cause, it is still unethical to achieve a good by morally wicked means. But worse yet, it is cynical to allow others to achieve the effects that you desire by permitting by inaction those immoral actions designed to achieve the ends that one desires--as if you can obtain the fruits of forbidden labor without getting your own hands dirty. Yet any moral code should make it clear that to fail to act when one recognized a wrong being committed is a form of complicity in that wrongful action. To fail to act in a case when the actor expects to benefit from that unstopped actions then elevates the moral agent (Will Pitt) to the status of culpable party. Ipso facto, by moral standards Will would be required not to write a check, but rather to hunt down those who are punching Earl & Skinner & Elad and use deadly force to stop them. To do otherwise would implicity endorse the use of violence.
|