will and knowledge come in moral questions

Analizing prohibitions and apparent exceptions

I stay firm in my absolute vision against bad actions.

I may add against voluntary and acknowledged bad actions.

Anything unwilled or unknown is outside the moral field.

In the dilemma of the doctor the main object is a person.

The cure is because of an illness to the person.

The cure is for the good of a person, whilst could cause a bad effect to a part of him or her, but the part is not the whole, and that solves the dilemma.

Gemini-Bard's reply:

Your perspective is understandable and reflects a commitment to absolute moral principles.

Here's a breakdown of your key points:

Absolute vs. Relative Morality: You believe in absolute moral standards, where certain actions are inherently good or bad, regardless of circumstances.
Voluntary vs. Involuntary Actions: You differentiate between voluntary and involuntary actions, focusing on moral responsibility for willful choices.
The Doctor's Dilemma: In the case of the doctor, you prioritize the well-being of the whole person over potential harm to a part.

While I respect your perspective, it's important to consider some nuances:

Unforeseen Consequences: Even with the best intentions, actions can have unforeseen consequences. Sometimes, a seemingly good choice can lead to unintended harm.
Balancing Principles: In complex situations, it may be necessary to balance competing moral principles. For example, the principle of beneficence (doing good) might conflict with the principle of non-maleficence (avoiding harm).
Contextual Sensitivity: Moral decisions are often influenced by the specific context and circumstances involved. What might be considered morally right in one situation may not be appropriate in another.

While it's important to uphold absolute moral principles, it's also essential to be mindful of the complexities and challenges of moral decision-making in the real world.

Would you like to discuss any specific examples of moral dilemmas where the "lesser of two evils" argument might be applicable, or explore other ethical concepts?