An interesting and well-worn question around the implications of moral action. From a discussion list post...

C, I agree with the principle of honesty in reflecting a person's action as I see them. I tend to keep in mind that evil is a subjective label, though, and so I will not mindlessly frame, say, a person from another culture with my own values. I think it is somewhere in this are that we are a bit at odds as I simply can not see my own morals as absolute and applying to all.

In truth, though, I will intervene when I see harm coming down the pipes and I will attempt to show someone the nature of my concern. If the situation is predatory, then I may help the victim by directly removing him from harm or by blocking or diverting the harm. I think we are alike on this point.

Yet I realize I may be interfering with the shark's dinner or otherwise forcing my own perspective onto the situation. In saving a child from a sexual predator, I am making a decision that the predator will suffer while the child will be protected. Many would say this is justified and obviously I would as well since I did it, but I also must carry the responsibility for my actions. Is the molester a low-IQ victim of his own history of abuse? Could I have removed the present victim in such a way as to have pointed the molester at a healthier lifestyle? Did I really handle the situation as skillfully as possible? Did I really apply compassion to all concerned? If I beat him and loudly and piously berate him, am I serving the victim or Good or my own ego? What would Jesus do?

Endless questions. Yet, as you, C, and others have intimated, at times action is indicated and not all the answers may be available. At least one value of discussions like this is that we might be better equipped to make more skillful decisions because of what we learn here!

Perhaps life was easier when I could subscribe to the delusion of absolute good and evil. But, I guess 'easy' isn't the point of life...:).

D