"If a coup plot succeeds, it is patriotic; if it fails it is a crime."
I have always FELT this to be the most immoral, cynical, fallacious and downright evil piece of reasoning that is in common use in our public life. And now I KNOW why. It is actually an incitement to rebellion and sedition, for it upholds the attempt to succeed at a coup plot as patriotic. Worse you better succeed at your rebellion or he will call you a criminal and pretend not to have been a part of any rising against injustice.! It is a declaration that:
"The end justifies the means...especially if you successfully seize State Power."
Faithful, patriotic soldiers and officers of the Armed Forces and even common citizens might take the "Justice" Secretary seriously at his word. But weak, immoral minds like him deserve nothing but everlasting disdain. Logically speaking, such a statement can only be uttered by successful coup plotters who've gotten away with their crime and are now only taunting those who've finally turned against them or labor under their illicit rule.
Secretary Raul Gonzalez should be censured for his unpatriotic and treasonous statement. He is really no better than the CPP NPA and the failed coup plotters in moral and philosophical weight.
What a malignant jerk attends Justice in this land!
Folks, I've actually found the word for Sec. Gonzalez' particular mental illness: CASUISTRY
Casuistry is a broad term that refers to a variety of forms of case-based reasoning. Used in discussions of law and ethics, casuistry is often understood as a critique of a strict principle-based approach to reasoning. For example, while a principle-based approach may conclude that lying is always morally wrong, the casuist would argue that lying may or may not be wrong, depending on the details surrounding the case. Consider the following two cases. On the one hand, the casuist might conclude that a person is wrong to lie while giving legal testimony under oath. On the other hand, the casuist might argue that lying is actually the best moral choice if the lie saves someone's life. For the casuist, the circumstances surrounding a particular case are essential for evaluating the proper response to a particular case. Casuistic reasoning typically begins with a clear-cut, paradigm case (from the Greek word παράδειγμα (paradeigma) which means "pattern" or "example", from the word παραδεικνύναι (paradeiknunai) meaning "demonstrate"). In legal reasoning, for example, this might be a case precedent, such as an obvious case of premeditated murder. From this model case, the casuist would then ask how close the particular case currently under consideration matches the paradigm case. Cases similar to the paradigm case ought to be treated in a similar manner; cases unlike the paradigm case ought to be treated differently. Thus, a man is properly charged with premeditated murder if the circumstances surrounding his particular case closely resemble the ideal case of premeditated murder. The less a particular case resembles the paradigm case, the weaker the justification for treating that particular case like the paradigm case.Diabolical, really.