Am reading a mystery novel in which the protagonist mulls over on a lot of moral issues in between testing her amateur sleuthing skills. This strikes self as something worth pondering:
Distant wrongs: an interesting issue in moral philosophy. Do past wrongs seem less wrong to us simply because they are less vivid?
That has always been the case, hasn’t it? Time heals all wounds. But how does time justify the human error? Just because it happened a long time ago, just because you don’t feel angry or hurt or betrayed anymore, just because the crime-doer confessed to suffering from guilt over the years, how does that make the wrong less wrong? How can punishment delayed be less than what it could be at that moment in time if the crime was discovered? Showing remorse by confessing to a crime years after it was done does not in any make the crime less criminal, does it? It does not make a dead person less dead. It does not make a woman less raped. It does not make a wife less betrayed by her husband.
But you bet your life if you confess your crime years after it’s done, the repercussions are definitely miniscule in comparison to what it might have been if you confessed at that moment of time.
And that is why when you make a huge fuss out of it as you would in that moment of time, people say things like But it happened ages ago! or Just forgive and forget, at least he’s being honest with you.
Well that is NOT the point, now is it?