[The Saucepan Man]

Should we judge the truth of the maxim of 'murder (not mere killing, or accident, but deliberate murder) is bad' on the ground that murderer him/herself, perhaps, has different code of conduct which carries along his/her personal truth of "murder is good"?

In many cases (although not all), I do not doubt that the murderer is acting in accordance with his or her personal values. Happily such individuals are in the minority since murder (as a general proposition) is regarded by the overwhelming majority of people as detrimental to society and therefore "wrong". Equally happily, I find myself in the majority on that one.

However, there are cases where deliberate murder is regarded as “good” by society itself. State-sanctioned murder, in the form of capital punishment, is regarded by many as morally acceptable. I cannot accept it as such. Different values. Different truths.

Now I can't help feeling that was a bit unfair, though

I wouldn’t regard it as such, given that Aiwendil and I are perfectly capable of speaking up for ourselves. I hope that I have made my position clear. If not, then I doubt that there’s much more I can say on this question of truth and belief.

Would not it be equally unfair of them to tell us that we were afraid to admit the harsh 'reality' of Godless world and were trying to find sort of a blindfold in religion to sooth our fear?

I would be more likely to point to the problems caused throughout history when one set of people claims a monopoly on the truth and asserts that there is something wrong with those who will not or cannot see it in the same way.