[_bfhp]

We see all kinds of moral decision making paradoxes: when men act against homosexuality and then later come out as always having been gay, when religious leaders abuse people sexually...

I think morality is just fluid for most people, when we want to do something badly we will take on frameworks of atonement or utilitarianism ("I'll do this thing, but it's ok because of this separate thing cancelling it out") and it's often wrapped up in our own greater inner struggles, not some isolated psychological puzzle box that can be studied. Meat-eating is a worldwide culturally-reinforcing personal struggle of having compassion toward suffering of all things that can suffer. I think part of why pro-animal activists get so derided when they criticize people or behaviors, is because we know that they're trying to heal by force when people need to do it themselves.

[krapp]

>when men act against homosexuality and then later come out as always having been gay, when religious leaders abuse people sexually...

Those aren't moral paradoxes, those are just people being hypocrites.

The paradox, as such, is trying to reconcile the genocidal God of the Old Testament with the New Testament, and both with modern morality.

[_bfhp]

The BBC writer uses the phrase "forms of behaviour that conflict with deeply held moral principles" to assumably define moral decision making paradox. One could also add "being hypocrites" to make a sort of definition triangle containing all of these examples. Where's the differences?

[krapp]

The difference to me is whether the moral principles are deeply held, or merely pretense.