"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > 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.

What you have is a morality of convenience.