> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following
> > situation. The situation of no choice.
>
> 1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
> outcome doesn't change.

Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
as being way less morally wrong than willful
complicity.

> 2. There IS a choice.

The only other choice (assuming one
can't afford to homestead) is death
from starvation. That can't possibly
be seen as a viable choice! Surely
you must agree.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.