I have written about knowing one will need "forgiveness" as a sure sign that one is about to cross a boundary. The spectrum of importance of legal and ethical boundaries is vast, of course.
Boundaries - geographic, legal and ethical - are inherent in the practice of some state legislatures in the United States called gerrymandering - "the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent to create undue advantage for a party, group, or socioeconomic class within the constituency." When it is used to protect incumbents, Professor Wayne Dawkins describes gerrymandering as "politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians."
Reality check: Does my decision-making involve moral gerrymandering - the conscious or unconscious changing of my moral boundaries so I can do what I want to do or avoid doing what I don't want to do? I place a high value on telling the truth - and on doing the right thing. What should I do - what DO I do - when telling the truth about something unimportant, like whether or not I enjoyed an experience, would needlessly hurt someone's feelings? Do I move the boundaries of my core values to disenfranchise my conscience? To excuse or justify serving my interest rather than another person's interest?
How alert am I to the difference between suppressing one value to honor a higher value - especially love - on the one hand, and, on the other, suppressing the higher value for convenience or the avoidance of embarrassment or discomfort?
In the phrase "situation ethics," isn't ethics the more important term, and the loving service of others always the goal?
