The Question of Lance Armstrong's Morals, For Me, Is One of First Weighing My Own Actions Not His

The question of Lance Armstrong's morals is one we all should be to asking ourselves today before we quickly jump on the bad-Lance bandwagon. The question of Lance is really one of where is our own line. Where is the line beyond which winning is no longer worth the cost of achieving it?. When do the means stop being justified by the ends?

A case like Lance's seems so easy to judge. It seems easy/comfortable to condemn him for going over 'the' line but IMO it isn't really that clear cut. Their doesn't seem to be a universally accepted way to draw a clear line, we are all damaged goods [except those of furry class like my best friend Pancho], we all weigh the balance between moral and immoral based on our own inner 'voice', we are all capable of justifying to ourselves behaviour as moral that others judge to be immoral.

Lance didn't waterboard anybody to get them to confess or inform on compatriots. He didn't lace any blankets with smallpox before handing them out to the Indians. He didn't rain down bombs on innocent children. He didn't slaughter millions of bison for their tongues or any of the other terrible things that our fellow humans judged at the time to be moral but we now almost all see as immoral.

Lance didn't sell mortgages to folks he knew couldn't pay, then after collecting a sales commission, throw the people into the street when they inevitably didn't pay. He didn't go out bitching and protesting against guns or pollution or bank 'profits' while at the same time accepting the interest from his RRSP, 401K or bank account while cashing his check from them.

The question of Lance for me is one of checking my own moral lines in the sand, seeing on which side of my line my own actions fall and restricting my judgements to those of that person. That's my question and my guest for today, and every other day, as i get out of bed and have to face that ugly damaged bastard in the mirror again.