Part I - On Moral Dilemma
By Bob Carney



For me, "things" (not a word we should make habitual, lest we lose right to some claim in "intellectual" differentiation) mostly tool along "dandy", splendidly perhaps, albeit in a fairly predictable manner. Not that I'm complaining about lack of certain levels of diurnal, seasonal, and cyclical excitement. I have my profession, wherein I greedily pursue the Almighty Greenback. I have the ongoing great "Inner Conflict" with my compulsions and desires. The plumbing in my home conspires, in league with winter's cold, to break-water down-and rot the heart out of my house. My dog defecates on the carpet. Hell, my dog EATS the carpet-shit and all. Aforementioned notwithstanding, EXCEPT for once, maybe twice a year, I fancy I know how to intuitively handle even these most baffling problems.

The really, really super-hyper-ultra-confounding issues, I leave to Prophets, Philosophers, Paul Cooijmans (for legal matters, see "Crime and Sentence"; P=R times C SQUARED formula-for example), and if and when the going gets brutal-I may even feel compelled to pull out the Christian Bible. That's a last resort, my amigos, but yes, it does happen.

The Bible in my hands is a versatile instrument. If, for instance, I'm looking for something with a compassionate, reconciling, (reasonably) tolerant flavor, I can flip to the "New" parts. Should I be in need of Revenge, I go straight off to the "Old" section. In the Old Testimony, the Bearded Bad-ass did not let any one blade of grass grow under his robe, before He would put the SMACK-DOWN on law-breakers. As well, it seemed pretty doggone acceptable for the "Righteous" to take the grievance in to their own hands, and put "sin" in a sleeper-hold. The New version, however, recommends caution and is continually reminding the reader of his lack of moral authority, (e.g. the section about logs and optics) irrespective of how law-abiding the offended may believe he (or she) to be-judgment and concomitant punishment is not for YOU to mete (out)!

If I seek self-incrimination, I don't EVEN have to direct my attention to any particular section. Just open'er'up and there it is. I only "go there" as a very, very last option. A Cooijmans' test will suffice in most cases to dress any wounds hubris inflicts. Most of my wounds result from that #1 sin. (By the way, I get back at the designer of those examinations by leaving them out where my beloved canine family member may chew on, and sometimes urinate on, the text. Other times, I don't chance anything and chop the paper up in his food bowl, along with the rest of the Kibbles'n'Bits).

Now, and of course, all the while I'm doing all this "flipping" about, I realize that almost any set of facts, law, precepts, tenants, stories-what have you-may be lifted from their respective cultural, historical, or more local contexts and be used-twisted to my desire. This solves nothing, of course, other than to take my mind off the injury in a premeditated, conclusion-controlled fashion. This is good for entertainment, and if the problem is just bad enough to have driven me to the Good Book yet not ugly enough for me to need to have the truth, a real answer, or some such claptrap that some of us (smarties) may like to think is quite unobtainable. Bad, bad, very exceptionally bad, nasty dilemma seems to call for a different approach.

To be continued.........