Originally Posted by wonderwahine
to you it is immoral........ but its not, simple.
OK, let's simplify.
If I let your child play in my shed, and I forget there is rat poison in there, and he eats it, I'm an idiot, but there was no intent.
But, if I let him in there knowing there is rat poison in there, that is immoral.
Now, if I can't read, and I think those things are peanut butter cookies, it's not immoral and there was no intent, it's just a tragic accident.
Now, with the toys, if I give them to you not realizing there is lead in them, there is no intent.
If I give them to you knowing there is lead in them, I am being immoral, because if I think they aren't good enough for my family, I shouldn't pass them on to someone else. If you insist you know the dangers and it's ok, well, then we can talk about grey areas, and maybe I could salve my conscience, maybe not.
If something happened to your child, I would still feel terribly guilty, no matter how many times you told me it was ok, because deep down, I believe it's immoral to pass those things on.
But, if neither of us has any idea
anything might be wrong with them, or neither of us believes anything is wrong with them,
then I can give them to you, and no big deal either way.
It's not exactly intentionally causing harm, but the possibility
of harm, and the fact that the person is aware of this
that bugs me.
The different beliefs I can accept. It's the differing beliefs and the intentional passing on of something you believe is dangerous that seems callous and wrong.