Changing lanes

A movie I just watched, it made me think a lot. It brought up a dilemma I have considered before, possibly for the first time when Faith killed the human and Buffy had to decide if they should turn themselves in. Faith's opinion was that they did more good than harm and that they should be above the law. That also brought in issues of them feeling that they are better than others, which isn't what I'm getting at though, and also it was pretty obvious (even to a highschooler) that it would be unnecessary for Buffy to go to jail, because that doesn't actually help anything (the guy is dead!) and also she is needed. But in this movie one of the things brought up by these filthy filthy rich lawyers is that they can lie, cheat and steal all they want because at the end of the day they think they've done more good than harm. And I just...that doesn't seem right to me. Is it permissible to do things that are wrong, provided that at the end of the day your net goodness-o-dometer is in the green? It's so Goddamn frustrating, because as far as I'm concerned to say that it is alright to do something wrong because balances later is flat out moral laziness. It's twisting the definitions of what is wrong and right. It is WRONG to do things that negatively impact other people. Wrong. But it is also flat out impossible to live a life that doesn't cause harm. Using petroleum is murder. Styrofoam cups burn a hole in our ozone layer. Eating meat kills another living being and I still fucking talk about people behind their backs! But does the fact that it is impossible to live a truly flawless life mean that we should just ignore what we are doing? It would drive someone insane to pine and dwell over everything that they hurt or ruin during the course of a day, and it would make your life awful, for ne actual reason. But living in denial of others' suffering is lacking in emotional intelligence and awareness. And this doesn't even consider things like lying to spare people's feelings, or other more difficult moral dilemmas. Either/or situations, in which both options are hurtful. Like the old issue of the race riot, in which you've got a white man accused of raping and murdering a black woman and there is a huge number of civil rights protestors outside and you *know* this guy didn't do it, but you also know that if you find him innocent there will be a riot and many people will be hurt, injured, arrested, and/or worse. What the fuck are you supposed to do? The guy is innocent! The greater good is at stake! Which is the greater good? Hell if I know. In terms of just simple addition, more harm will come of releasing the white guy than jailing him. But sentencing an innocent person to life in prison? Is that really the better option? Doesn't there have to be some sort of median between Kant and Bentham? And I don't want sagacious advice like "Each case is different" or "Do what your heart says." I want to know what to do! I want to live a life in which my existence doesn't ruin anyone else's!

Fuck this shit.

I'm going vegetarian again and I'm going to start riding my bike to work.