Can someone help explain why abortion is much worse than the Iraqi War?

[nancy_dalrymple]

I was not picking on Sair when I made my comment, I was addressing the issue of whether good and evil can exist in a godless universe. If either of you believe that it can I would like to hear an explanation. How would you define good and evil in any way other than that which appears useful? What would be the source of “goodness”?

Ender

All I was trying to say was if there was no evil in the world then there would be no need for Jesus to have died on the cross, and all our works are as filthy rags for God is no respecter of man. Works without faith is dead.And if the universe is Godless than there is none. You either are for or against for if you are luke warm I will spew you out of my mouth thus saith the Lord God. That is a deep question,it did make me think Nancy

 

[PerryJ]

For an introduction to humanist values and morality, I have provided links to a few sites that expand upon the notion that it is possible to be a good person without reference to God or to any organised religion.

Humanism bases its morality upon values that are broadly recognised as ‘good’ - such as compassion, honesty, natural justice, etc. Altruism - the ability to care for one’s fellow creatures - was a feature of human societies long before the Bible was written, and it is also a feature of some animal societies.

To humanists, defining goodness and morality entirely in reference to God is also problematic because the biblical conception of God very often departs from those values that define what we call ‘goodness’.

Sair, I shortened your post to post my response. My post concerns your entire post.

I have just started looking at this thread again. Your statements although sincere are incorrect on many levels. I will respond as I can.

Humanism is a theory without a base. It is a two legged stool. The principle is that man choose what is good and evil based upon value judgments. This is incorrect. First good and evil was defined at the beginning by God. It was his creation and his definition to make. It is not a subjective valuation that man can make. If this premise is true then why does man, mostly anyway, come to the same conclusion? It is because this is how the world and our selves were designed. God placed upon us the natural laws to govern us. For example though shall not kill. For humanism to be true than there can not be a master design. If there is no master design then there is no God. Yet every scientific theory is based upon cause and effect. If this theory holds true then their can not be any beginning. Yet we live in time so there has to be time. Time has to have a beginning as defined by the thought of time itself. So if we have a beginning of time and we need a cause for time and the process for evolution of the universe there has to be a cause without and effect. This is God, the one unmovable that is without time. Humanism is a simplistic theory that places man above basic science. It is a philosophical exercise that is not based upon science. I would suggest reading Thomas Aquinas. A person can not be good without the effect of God as God defined man and placed the natural laws, which you refer to as morality, on his heart.

You state that man has free will. Without a God there can not be any free will. Without a God we are reduced to physical beings a chemical reaction to stimulus. Again as science has proven without God there can only be cause and effect. Everything in our world is based upon this principle. What we see creates a stimulus which our brain chemically reacts to as designed by the make up of the chemicals in our brain. An act outside the defined chemical make up of our brain can not occur. The normal response to this thought is learned behavior. If we are only chemically defined how do we learn? We do not learn we are chemically stimulated to respond. There is only a chemical response of pain. There is only a chemical response to pleasure. In essence pleasure does not even exist as it is a chemical condition. Without God and the created soul as defined by God there is no freewill. The thought of social evolution is scientifically invalid. No need to go into animal behavior as this is a red herring that has no basis.

It appears your understanding of the Bible has errors in it. (Your statement that God often shows acts of violence, injustice etc.) If one follows the Bible God expands his teachings as man is able to understand them. He starts with one individual, expands to tribes, to a nation and then to the world. He teaches us as we are capable to understand.

The Bible is defined by two rules: mercy and justice. As man follows a path of evil God can grant mercy; however, this will not alleviate the need for justice. All men receive justice equal to their sins. This justice can be received on this Earth or in the afterlife. This is the concept of purgatory; which, is contained in the Bible.

Please be more specific with acts of violence from God. It will be easier for me to explain the story to you. In general man creates violence through acts of his freewill. God punishes these acts. Specifically he does this in the Old Testament to show man that sin has consequences. In the New Testament he is demonstrating that he will walk beside you and help you. This does not stop his judgment nor does it stop the consequences of sin as defined by the Old Testament. Why would God choose to punish sinners? He does because as man departs from the intent of original creation evil, harm, is brought into this world. The clearest example is death. Sin brings death into this world. It comes not only for the evil it also comes to the righteous.

Your thought than God departs from goodness is a very Islamic thought that can not be supported. For God to depart from goodness he would have to be bound by time. As we have shown God can not be bound by time as we have to have one cause that is not impacted by time. For God to depart from goodness he would have to change his mind. Yet as God is above time he can not change his mind. He is not linear as time and as such can not change. He is the one constant, the unmovable cause of all.

Humanisn is a shallow theory that has tried to grip the world many times. It always falls apart on inspection as it is a derivative of the mind of man. It is just the latest Tower of Babel. It is mental gymnastics that just does not hold up to scientific or philosophical scrutiny.

 

[PerryJ]

And to a humanist like myself, that means a great deal of moral responsibility has also been removed. Self is not necessarily the final arbiter in a moral decision - there must be consideration for the needs of others who are affected by your choice. Beings who are capable of suffering are entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering. Scientific research indicates that a foetus (not a euphemism, but a scientifically correct and accurate term) is incapable of processing pain during the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are performed. Late-term abortions, which are more likely to cause pain to the foetus, are, like cases resulting from rape, comparatively very rare, and usually performed for very pressing reasons, often to do with the health of the mother.

On the other hand, the woman in whose body the foetus resides is very capable of suffering. She is also entitled to see the foetus as part of her body, since it is incapable of idependent survival before about 24 weeks’ gestation. Natural law in fact favours the survival of the mother over the foetus - this is why miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) occur, both in humans and other animals.

Sair, Many of your premises are in error. It has been proven that babies can feel pain at four weeks old. It has also been proven that babies react without stimulus to act at this early stage of development. The baby has free will. It is not an appendage to the woman. It is it own life. (Perhaps the studies you are lookling at are older.)

Your humanist theory is based upon the effects of this world and this world alone. As such your perspective on life is skewed. For example in your world justice does not exist. Some are blessed and some are not. There is no need for suffering, Nor does any good created by suffering outweigh the evil of suffering. For a Catholic this world combined with the after life produces justice. It also produces good from evil or righteousness from suffering.

Without this justice we are reduced to random acts with some gaining favor while others do not. Yet in a humanist world there can not be any random act. I defined this in an earlier post. It is scientifically impossible to for a humanist to believe in random acts or freewill.

Note that your use of the term natural law is not as a Christian would define it.

 

[Ender]

This off topic for this thread…

This is not really off topic. Our answer to the OP depends on our definition of morality.

it is possible to be a good person without reference to God or to any organised religion.

I don’t think anyone doubts this. The question I am raising is whether one can be good if God does not exist. You don’t have to believe in God to be good but if God does not exist then morality itself is an illusion.

Humanism bases its morality upon values that are broadly recognised as ‘good’ - such as compassion, honesty, natural justice, etc.

So is your morality based on consensus? Does it change as the consensus shifts? I understand that humanist morality is a subset of other moralities but this doesn’t address the question of whether morality actually exists or is simply mass delusion.

Altruism - the ability to care for one’s fellow creatures - was a feature of human societies long before the Bible was written

Morality doesn’t depend on a belief in God but on the existence of God. Comments about the Bible and Christianity are irrelevant.

Whether you choose to believe that this quality came to humans through the agency of God, or whether it was a product of human social evolution, the fact is that the idea of ‘goodness’ is strongly imprinted upon the collective human psyche.

Yes it is, just as is the idea of “god” is strongly imprinted there but this is not proof of the existence of either.

I read two of your references, neither of which addresses the question I raised:

Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

I was hoping for a rational explanation for this belief. It is no more convincing to me than my statement that “I believe in God” would be to you.

We have outgrown the need for an invisible punishing deity to instill morality in us through fear. We know we can be good without God.

These positions are simply stated without even the pretense of explanation. This is very thin stuff.

Ender

 

[Sair]

Humanisn is a shallow theory that has tried to grip the world many times. It always falls apart on inspection as it is a derivative of the mind of man. It is just the latest Tower of Babel. It is mental gymnastics that just does not hold up to scientific or philosophical scrutiny.

Um…gosh, where do I start?

Mental gymnastics, you say. I must admit, that was the very phrase that sprang to my mind as I began reading this post. You bend over backwards to try to situate the world in the context of God - yet you offer no proof for the existence of said God, upon which your entire argument is based. My arguments would indeed be in error if you were able to show, as indisputable fact, that God - and God in the character you attempt to describe - exists, independently of human imagination. This is a key concept for humanists, and it is also the reason humanists seek a basis for morality in collective consciousness and values.

Among many acts of violence apparently perpetrated by God - if the Bible is to be taken as objective revealed truth - is this, from Deuteronomy 30-34:
“But King Sihon would not let us pass through his country. *The Lord has made him stubborn and rebellious, *so that we could defeat him and take his territory, which we still occupy. Then the Lord said to me, ‘Look, I have made King Sihon and his land helpless before you; take his land and occupy it.’ Sihon came out with all his men to fight us near the town of Jahaz, but the Lord our God put him in our power, and we killed him, his sons, and all his men. At the same time we captured and destroyed every town, and put everyone to death, men, women and children. We left no survivors.” (my italics, added for emphasis)

Here is a clear example of God committing acts of violence through human instruments. He overrides the free will of the victims, and makes sure the Israelites are afforded the opportunity to slaughter an entire nation. In order to at least create a tenuous link with this thread, may I draw your attention to the fact that here we see examples of both an unjust war and the killing of innocents - all completely endorsed and indeed made possible by the biblical God. It is you who engage in mental gymnastics if you wish to make this God a basis for any kind of moral behaviour or code of ethics.

Simply put, if one does not wish to draw upon a violent and capricious god - whose existence is wide open to debate - in order to define morality, one is left with human experience, collected and collective human wisdom and the desire inherent in many human minds for a world built on peace, love and compassion.

 

[cazayoux]

My arguments would indeed be in error if you were able to show, as indisputable fact, that God - and God in the character you attempt to describe - exists, independently of human imagination.

Admitted, we have no proof for the existence of God that will satisfy you.
Likewise, you have no proof for you position that ‘as an indisputable fact’ that God does not exist.

We both have positions that we cannot ‘prove’.
That’s the definition of faith … belief without proof.
We both have a position based on faith.

This is a key concept for humanists, and it is also the reason humanists seek a basis for morality in collective consciousness and values.

This part in bold may lead to a very interesting discussion.

Are you saying that we can define morality as a collective (a society) based on values?
Is this along the lines of … We agree that killing each other is wrong … or … We agree not to kill each other.
This would be like a social contract, wouldn’t it?

What happens if someone agrees, then goes against what they agreed upon?

michel

 

[PerryJ]

Um…gosh, where do I start?

Mental gymnastics, you say. I must admit, that was the very phrase that sprang to my mind as I began reading this post. You bend over backwards to try to situate the world in the context of God - yet you offer no proof for the existence of said God, upon which your entire argument is based. My arguments would indeed be in error if you were able to show, as indisputable fact, that God - and God in the character you attempt to describe - exists, independently of human imagination. This is a key concept for humanists, and it is also the reason humanists seek a basis for morality in collective consciousness and values.

Let us just start with the concept of God.

Your response evades the point you claim I do not prove. As has been defined by science there is always cause and effect. This is a basic concept for physics. Yet one has to define the first cause. Humanism avoids this point as your theory can not explain or define the first cause. The solution is God. For God to exist as a first cause; however, he can not be bound by time. If he was bound by time he could not be the first cause. As God is not bound by time he is one with himself and as he thinks he acts. He does not change. The Old Testament is the same as the New Testament as God can not change. Again for one to change on would have to be bound by time.

This basic proof of God has existed for centuries and has not been disproved by any philosopher that I know. If you dispute this proof than define the first cause for me. Humanism can’t and I believe you know it. As such Humanism is an invalid theory without scientific or philosophical substance. Please do not avoid this concept as many humanist try to do. If you do it will show that humanism is a house of cards.

Perhaps I was to broad with the first post. We can define God later. Lets us just start with the first cause.

 

[kimmielittle]

I can not accept humanistic theory as it’s based on “humans” alone…It’s completely ‘humanly’ subjective.

If it worked, it would be grand…but it’s ‘humanly’ fallible.
Humanistic theory relies upon a treaty with ALL other Humans.

How many “treaties” with say, the Native Americans…First People, have been kept? Not one. Maybe, signed in good faith ( faith here used as in our legal laws ), BUT quickly changed in the political wind of the time.

It just isn’t logical. Why? It depends on subjective thoughts alone. It allows each of us as ‘humans’ to do OUR will.

 

[Michaeljc4]

I haven’t read this whole thread, only this last page. Humanity has no moral consenus. We have enough history behind us now to know that human societies can define good and bad in a variety of ways. For example, slavery was good. Genocide was good. Human sacrfice was good…and they were morally normative in whichever society we are thinking of.

However, I think we can all agree that slavery, genocide, and human sacrfice are not good, regardless of the opinions people may have about them. There are things that are always good, and things that are always bad, despite what we or anyone else thinks about them.

There are, in other words, moral absolutes that transcend humanity’s opinions. There are moral truths that exist beyond our beliefs about morals (if that makes sense). I may be able to convince myself that torturing a baby for fun is right from my point of view. I may convince others of the same thing, until we form a community where torturing babies for fun is normative. Perhaps, eventually, every person in the world would agree that torturing babies for fun is okay. But…it’s still wrong? Is there any reasonable human being reading this post who believes that torturing babies for fun is morally subjective? That it’s just up to you to decide if torturing a baby for fun is okay or not?

If not…where does the morally objective principal come from that tells us that genocide, human sacrifice, baby torture, or slavery, are always wrong?

God. The originator of moral Truth who transcends human beings.

As far as the original poster’s question: abortion has destroyed 50 million human beings. The war in Iraq–like it or hate it–has killed a fraction of that number. They are completely different scales of human evil. I’m not suggesting that however many people have died in Iraq aren’t important; they certainly are. I am saying that 50 million human beings slaughtered in abortion is a much larger moral evil.

Humanism appeals to people’s moral vanity. You get to be God. For myself, I know I am much too human to make up my own rules.

 

[kimmielittle]

I haven’t read this whole thread, only this last page. Humanity has no moral consenus. We have enough history behind us now to know that human societies can define good and bad in a variety of ways. For example, slavery was good. Genocide was good. Human sacrfice was good…and they were morally normative in whichever society we are thinking of.

However, I think we can all agree that slavery, genocide, and human sacrfice are not good, regardless of the opinions people may have about them. There are things that are always good, and things that are always bad, despite what we or anyone else thinks about them.

There are, in other words, moral absolutes that transcend humanity’s opinions. There are moral truths that exist beyond our beliefs about morals (if that makes sense). I may be able to convince myself that torturing a baby for fun is right from my point of view. I may convince others of the same thing, until we form a community where torturing babies for fun is normative. Perhaps, eventually, every person in the world would agree that torturing babies for fun is okay. But…it’s still wrong? Is there any reasonable human being reading this post who believes that torturing babies for fun is morally subjective? That it’s just up to you to decide if torturing a baby for fun is okay or not?

If not…where does the morally objective principal come from that tells us that genocide, human sacrifice, baby torture, or slavery, are always wrong?

God. The originator of moral Truth who transcends human beings.

As far as the original poster’s question: abortion has destroyed 50 million human beings. The war in Iraq–like it or hate it–has killed a fraction of that number. They are completely different scales of human evil. I’m not suggesting that however many people have died in Iraq aren’t important; they certainly are. I am saying that 50 million human beings slaughtered in abortion is a much larger moral evil.

Humanism appeals to people’s moral vanity. You get to be God. For myself, I know I am much too human to make up my own rules.

Might I add to this "As far as the original poster’s question: abortion has destroyed 50 million human beings. '] ALL here are innocent. ( innocent here meaning no crimes against Humanity ).

AND…Not all killed in Iraq are innocent. Least we forget the acts of terrorists, against humanity.

 

[Michaeljc4]

Not everyone killed in any war is innocent…but the majority of those killed are. War is evil. It may be a necessary evil, but it is evil none the less. No one knows how many Iraqis have been killed since the war began, but I am willing to bet that the vast, overwhelming majority of them were not terrorists or soldiers. They were just people. Same in Gaza: Hamas gets killed (and good riddance)…but so do many, many noncombatants: children, the elderly, mothers, men who do not carry arms. Just people.

Our church has quite a bit to say about war, kimmielittle, as it does about abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and the death penalty. It’s all related.

But your point is well taken: All victims of abortion are innocent. As I said, it’s a different set of moral scales, in my opinion.

 

[PerryJ]

Might I add to this "As far as the original poster’s question: abortion has destroyed 50 million human beings. '] ALL here are innocent.

AND…Not all killed in Iraq are innocent. Least we forget the acts of terrorists, against numerous humans.

In fact no one on this Earth is innocent. We all have sinned as such and deserve death.

Death and the associated suffering is inevitable. For one to state that the Iraq war was wrong because people died is a simplistic thought. We will all suffer and die. There is nothing one can do about it. The Iraq war could impact the date of the event; but, not the event itself. As we are not God we do not even know if it changed the date of the person’s death.

 

[PerryJ]

Not everyone killed in any war is innocent…but the majority of those killed are. War is evil. It may be a necessary evil, but it is evil none the less. No one knows how many Iraqis have been killed since the war began, but I am willing to bet that the vast, overwhelming majority of them were not terrorists or soldiers. They were just people. Same in Gaza: Hamas gets killed (and good riddance)…but so do many, many noncombatants: children, the elderly, mothers, men who do not carry arms. Just people.

Our church has quite a bit to say about war, kimmielittle, as it does about abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and the death penalty. It’s all related.

But your point is well taken: All victims of abortion are innocent. As I said, it’s a different set of moral scales, in my opinion.

No living person is innocent. This is why we all must die. I recommend reading Jesus of Nazareth from the Pope. I believe it explains this concept very well.

 

[kimmielittle]

In fact no one on this Earth is innocent. We all have sinned as such and deserve death.

I’m sorry, I thought Original Sin was a “given” amongst us Catholics. I edited my first post…hey, I’m a kid and a girl…I’m allowed to change what I said

Death and the associated suffering is inevitable. For one to state that the Iraq war was wrong because people died is a simplistic thought. We will all suffer and die. There is nothing one can do about it. The Iraq war could impact the date of the event; but, not the event itself. As we are not God we do not even know if it changed the date of the person’s death.

 

[kimmielittle]

Not everyone killed in any war is innocent…but the majority of those killed are. War is evil. It may be a necessary evil, but it is evil none the less. No one knows how many Iraqis have been killed since the war began, but I am willing to bet that the vast, overwhelming majority of them were not terrorists or soldiers. They were just people. Same in Gaza: Hamas gets killed (and good riddance)…but so do many, many noncombatants: children, the elderly, mothers, men who do not carry arms. Just people.

Our church has quite a bit to say about war, kimmielittle, as it does about abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and the death penalty. It’s all related.

But your point is well taken: All victims of abortion are innocent. As I said, it’s a different set of moral scales, in my opinion.

I agree War is evil…The problem is Terrorist ( no matter what name they give themselves ) don’t see it as such.

My Brother ( He’s not my real Brother…I think He’s 23 years older than me )…Is a Colonel Marine who deploys “Special Teams”…Joint Special Operations Command. He doesn’t want to be over there. Do I think He’s evil…NO. Why? because His attempts are to stabilize peace not create war.

I guess, it’s easier for me to see why wars are fought ( though evil ) than just targeting a baby.

 

[Michaeljc4]

I hear you, sister. I’m a veteran myself.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Dear Sair, I dont know to much about your beliefs,but I can say,some how you must be searching for the answer or you would not be on this site or looking for answers, I pray to God who is omnipotent and everlasting to everlasting,that he will open your eyes so you will see with your heart,the inner self,that weather conscious or unconscience(how ever you spell it)you will know there is life beyond death.That God himself will reach you and you will truley believe in God for he is life,and every breath you take is a gift from God,to those who belive and those who do not.The choice is yours,but if you choose life eternal you must believe John 1-12 3:36 5:24 Titus 3:4-9 by his grace we are saved Eph:8-9 and become a new creature 2ndCor 5:17-21.Please read these scriptures,and I pray God will bless you with all these things through Christ Jesus Amen Thank You Nancy

 

[Sair]

Let us just start with the concept of God.

Your response evades the point you claim I do not prove. As has been defined by science there is always cause and effect. This is a basic concept for physics. Yet one has to define the first cause. Humanism avoids this point as your theory can not explain or define the first cause. The solution is God. For God to exist as a first cause; however, he can not be bound by time. If he was bound by time he could not be the first cause. As God is not bound by time he is one with himself and as he thinks he acts. He does not change. The Old Testament is the same as the New Testament as God can not change. Again for one to change on would have to be bound by time.

This basic proof of God has existed for centuries and has not been disproved by any philosopher that I know. If you dispute this proof than define the first cause for me. Humanism can’t and I believe you know it. As such Humanism is an invalid theory without scientific or philosophical substance. Please do not avoid this concept as many humanist try to do. If you do it will show that humanism is a house of cards.

Perhaps I was to broad with the first post. We can define God later. Lets us just start with the first cause.

A large amount of scientific thought, research, calculation and indeed speculation has gone into the task of determining how the universe as we know it came to exist. The Big Bang theory is one of these possible explanations, but the truth is that nobody absolutely knows for sure. Some physicists think they are getting closer to a scientific explanation for the universe - time will tell. As with evolution, chance cannot be discounted in relation to determining the origin of the universe. I, however, am not a physicist, so I don’t feel qualified to offer any specifics regarding an explanation for how time began - and, frankly, since the dispute that started this sub-thread seemed to be whether or not humanism was capable of defining a system of ethics or a moral code, I don’t see that it’s necessary to define the origins of the universe in which we exist. Just as the men who wrote the various books of the Bible did, humanists do our best with what we know, and what we can know.

As far as my personal views - and the views of many other humanists - are concerned, how the universe came to exist really doesn’t come to bear on constructions of morality. Most of us are actually content to admit that we don’t know how or when time began. What we do know is that human societies exist, and exist within the context of the natural world, as we understand it through our observations. Human relationships are complex, unpredictable and more than just a simple matter of cause and effect. In order for our relationships with each other and with the world around us to flourish and continue harmoniously, certain regulations on our behaviour are required. Humanism is thus not the excuse for unbridled hedonism that many Christians seem to believe - it’s not possible for any of us to simply do whatever we wish whenever we wish, without regard for others, because to do so would almost inevitably cause harm to our relationships with each other and with the world.

And so to the God question - for a question it must remain, until indisputable proof - hey, even some objective, tangible evidence - is offered for the existence of a higher spiritual being. Even if such proof is presented, there is then the problem of identifying this higher spiritual power with the God described in the Bible. I must confess myself incapable of the kind of doublethink required to reconcile the Old Testament God with the loving, forgiving God of Christianity. But, to own the truth, I am content not to know the answer to the God question. I lack sufficient knowledge to say one way or the other whether there is a higher spiritual power, within or outside the universe in which we exist. I like the idea of a benevolent god who watches over the world and all its creatures, but I freely admit that I do not know whether or not such a god exists. This does not change the fact that I feel it is right to treat my fellow creatures, both human and otherwise, with respect and compassion.

As for your first paragraph in this post, well…I concede that the gold medal for mental gymnastics is all yours. Congratulations. You have more ability to reconcile contradictory notions and construct convoluted ideas than I could possibly claim.

 

[Michaeljc4]

In order for our relationships with each other and with the world around us to flourish and continue harmoniously, certain regulations on our behaviour are required.

Unfortunately, in the absence of an external, objective standard of morality–a morality that exitst beyond one’s opinion about what is right or wrong–the ‘regulations on our behavior’ become subjective. How could it be otherwise? You believe your truth, I’ll believe mine, and we will do as we wish. If I believe that. If I believe that (for example) having sex with adolescents is okay, who are you to tell me otherwise? That’s my truth. If you believe that killing unborn children because they are inconvenient is okay, who am I to tell you otherwise? That’s your truth.

Remove God from morality and you are left with opinion and justifications. If you can supply me with a universal moral principal that **all **humanists believe, I’d like to hear it.

 

[Sair]

Remove God from morality and you are left with opinion and justifications. If you can supply me with a universal moral principal that **all **humanists believe, I’d like to hear it.

The universal principle is that you do your best with what you’re given. You examine your circumstances and weigh the likelihood of causing harm versus doing good. If, however, you work in black and white terms with morality, then you apply the exact same rule to every situation in which the terms appropriate to that rule are present.

Furthermore, a principle, as I understand it, is a somewhat different creature from a rule. I shall attempt a simplified explanation. If, for example, you act according to the principle of justice, you need to decide how justice is best applied in your given circumstances. If, however, you work according to the rule that all who commit a certain offence must be executed, then you apply that rule to everyone who commits the offence, regardless of their circumstances - or any mitigating factors that may be present. In both instances, mistakes are made and some erroneous judgements may be made, to the detriment of those involved. But I would venture to suggest that one who applies principles to circumstances rather than fitting circumstances to rules is the one more likely to learn from those errors and make improvements.