A moral quandry, or defining question?
At case here is the hilarious situation of the neo-cons of the right-wing Republican party and the Marxist being on the same page of the playbook.
While neither admits to ever agreeing with the other, the question is the same: can you do a bad thing for a good reason and still claim a moral imperative?
Marx said it, " The end justifies the means."
Plato took the same position by giving us the "medicinal lie."
The Republican party said it by giving us Iraq.
John Gault said it couldn't be done. (for Tom)
You have raised an important question that deserves to be explored and discussed.
Publius