An Unmade Argument

There were several water cooler discussions about the whole Robert Kraft scandal in the office yesterday. I haven’t paid any attention to the story so I stayed on the sidelines. There was one moment when I almost jumped in but my interest would have taken the discussion off topic and into a much broader philosophical discussion.

The people in the conversation were expressing their anger and outrage over the situation and I did not want to deny them that to engage in a debate I wasn’t prepared to have in the moment. I realize it may seem somewhat unfair for me to make my point here, but I will be sharing it and anyone involved is free to respond publicly or privately.

The point I want to adress was the assertion made that people in positions of higher authority and importance need to have a higher level of scruples than others.

Scruple is defined as:

a feeling of doubt or hesitation with regard to the morality or propriety of a course of action.

A scruple is a person’s automatized sense of morality. An moral emotional response. How a person acts in light of that is how willing a person is to do something they know to be immoral. Which leads me to the question of why should it be acceptable for an average person to be more willing to be immoral than for a VIP?

The answer of course is that it’s not acceptable. What is moral does not change based on how much money, fame or power you have.

If you judge it as immoral for Robert Kraft to visit a massage parlor to pay for sex acts, why would you not judge it as equally immoral for any average guy to stop in for happy ending?

Author: Stephen Macklin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight − five =