Situational Morality Just to get it right out in the open, this column is going to be about the relationship between ignorance and morality. I know, now your brain is hemorrhaging; just sit down, try and relax, and wait for the effect to pass. Specifically, these words will be describing the dominant moral system on the planet Earth, where, I am told, they often base morality on whether or not something bad will happen as a result of the action in question. This is referred to as "situation morality." So, their actions are loosely based on the consequences of their actions. This is all great, assuming, of course, that you happen to be an omniscient being, and actually know what the outcome of any specific event would be. As the all-powerful, but terribly bored, inhabitants of the djiknel system would tell you, however, this has the unfortunate side effect of squeezing all of what little joy there is out of life. So, in effect, you can see all of Earth's inhabitants bopping around all over on the surface of the planet doing whatever it is that they can possibly justify, given their own personal, highly subjective moral code. And, of course, really pissing each other off in the process. It tends to be great fun to watch. OK, as an example, many of the people of Earth agree that whatever you do is all right so long as no one gets hurt in the process. This gives them a unique perspective in the universe, in that, they cannot determine whether or not something is wrong on the face of it. They have to perform the act, and then wait to see if it was the wrong thing to do by observing the outcome. Therefore, the two most commonly heard comments are: 1. "But nobody got hurt;" and, 2. "But I didn't mean for anyone to get hurt." Let us consider the drunken driver for a moment. He would remain completely moral, until such time as he caused grievous bodily harm to someone. What if, having consumed great quantities of alcoholic fluids, a man stumbles over to a pay phone in a deserted parking lot. It is very late at night, and he proceeds to call the police (911). He tells the switchboard operator that a brawl has broken out at a bar two blocks away. The very same bar, incidentally, that this man chose to become inebriated in. The operator asks him if there are any weapons involved in the incident. "Yeah," the man slurs. "I saw a gun and... a hatchet." Within one minute, he can hear the police cars racing toward the bar and encircling it, sirens blaring. He is now free to drive home without the unnecessary and demeaning threat of being apprehended. And so long as he is able to cause no harm on his way there, he is completely moral. Now it's time for our quiz section. Is it morally wrong to play William Tell all of the time, or just when you are smashed? Or, is it morally wrong all of the time, or just when you nail your son to the wall with an arrow? Now, on to the question of the rehabilitation of offenders, or, to put it another way, do you get punished if you are just too stupid to get away with your actions? For instance, do you punish a mad machine gun maniac who walks into a McDonald's and opens fire? Oh yeah? Well what if he is a very bad shot, and manages to miss everyone? What then, smart guy? Now, what if the same guy goes into the restaurant, opens fire, and manages to miss almost everyone, with the notable exception of one or more persons that everyone hates anyway? What if he goes in, misses everyone else, but manages to hit an infamous puppet dictator of a suppressive South American regime, who just happens to be vacationing in LA, right between the eyes? What then? Now, as a kind of bonus question, consider this: you are dining at the McDonald's in question at the time that the maniac has chosen to schedule his killing spree. He manages to kill everyone, with the notable exception of you. How do you feel about this situation? Now, on to our last question. Consider this: amoebas reproduce by a method known as asexual reproduction. This means that when an amoebae feels that it is time to reproduce, it splits into two separate entities that are, however, exactly alike. All amoebas are the same (not counting mutants). They are all named Tom Jones. They are devoid of any originality or personality. No amoebae has ever been the life of the party. They are, in fact, quite boring. Question: if amoebas are all the alike, is it morally wrong to kill just one of them? What if you just kill four out of five? Sounds harmless enough, doesn't it? Why not give it a try? YOU IDIOT!! One of those four that you killed was, in fact, a slightly superior mutant. You have just single-handedly put an end to the only hope for advancement that these organisms may ever have! What do you mean, "But all amoebas look alike to me?" Of course they do. That's because you're not an amoebae. Now, what have we learned? David Raffin is the editor of Vision? Nary! magazine. A writer and a performer, he may be contacted though his home page. This column is available by email. If you are interested in running this column as a regular feature in your publication, contact here.