Truth is, I've always been selling out. The difference is that in the past, I looked like I had integrity because there were no buyers.
Good and bad are really arbitrary words when it comes to character.
The line between good and evil is movable and it's permeable.
Moral codes adjust themselves to environmental conditions.
Every vice was once a virtue, and may become respectable again, just as hatred becomes respectable in wartime.
I can discern that certain things have an effect on certain other things, but I don't view those effects as good or bad. If a context and a goal is defined, I could say if it's good or bad. But overall, I don't view things as good or bad.
There's no right or wrong, success or failure.
I don't think you cross the line - I think you move the line.
The morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed.
Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else.
A think may look specious in theory, and yet be ruinous in practice; a thing may look evil in theory, and yet be in practice excellent.
Telling a lie is called wrong. Telling the truth is called right. Except when telling the truth is called bad manners and telling a lie is called polite.
There are no principles; there are only events. There is no good and bad, there are only circumstances.
I don't believe that one should have one-size-fits-all moral rules for international political action.
No act is of itself either good or bad. Only its place in the order of things makes it good or bad.
We aren't the good guys, Anita. We're the necessary guys. -Edward
There's nothing "wrong" with anything. "Wrong" is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call "right." Yet, what is "right"? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are "right" and "wrong" simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?
No action is in itself good or bad, but only such according to convention.
There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do. It's all part of the same thing. And some of the things folks do is nice, and some ain't nice, but that's as far as any man got a right to say.
There are some natures which never grow large enough to speak out and say a bad act is a bad act, until they have inquired into the politics or the nationality of the man who did it.
Despite what they tell you, there are simply no moral absolutes in a complex world.
There is no ethics in general. There are only-eventually-ethics of processes by which we treat the possibilities of a situation.
Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this.
Sometimes you have to forget your principles and do what’s right.
Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.
