what do you think of all the amending and executive ordering against abortion, to get the bill passed? i've been thinking lately of the ethics of compromise. it's the greater good v ideals, which makes me :[ when they conflict, which is kind of always. like my response is 'if this is the sacrifice that needed to be made for the damn thing to pass at all, then it's better than nothing' but if there had been other sacrifices instead i'd maybe be aghast. what if they decided muslims couldn't get healthcare, or something blatantly awful - how is that really different? it's saying 'here is a good bill for all! except for this group, they get specially carved out as less important'.
i'm not thinking of this all utilitarianly, like what compromises will benefit the most people. in that case it's all just math and balancing. i'm thinking about what i consider morally justified or not. another example, which is what got me onto this line of thought initially: we read in crim the case where the supreme ct decided executing minors was unconstitutional. now i don't like the death penalty, but i also don't like youth being singled out as some incompetent class. since many of you don't see it that way, let's replace minors with women. imagine the SC ruled that killing women was cruel and unusual because women have feeble ladybrains and can't comprehend the ramifications of their actions. i don't think people would stand for that shit, even if they are totally against the death penalty. is this just deciding which ideal people like more? i'm not seeing a lot of ways in which the court insulting women is worse than the govt killing them. and yet.
 if you hate socialism or love fetuses or whatever, then replace this with a hypothetical better suited to your sensitivities.
and while i'm posting my babble, here's someone else's:
does ought imply can? does can imply 'is likely to'?