> suppose that dog just bit the man out of your view. Right, maybe not, justifiable certainly. Suppose indeed. You should join the philosopher at the other en

> suppose that dog just bit the man out of your view. Right, maybe not, justifiable certainly. Suppose indeed. You should join the philosopher at the other end of the bar who points out that perhaps the dog abuse averted a larger tragedy. ("You are standing by a railroad switch and a train is coming. You can divert it one of two ways. Stalled on one track is a schoolbus full of children. Stalled on the other is your lover. You can save one or the other but not both.....") While you to consider all of the possibilities, several of the rest of us will step outside to intervene. If there are mitigating reasons for the dog abuse then hopefully we will discover them. If not, hopefully we will bring the offender to account. You don't need any elaborate theory of morality to make the simple observation that sometimes things are more complicated than they appear to be at first. > How is an "infallible moral faculty" different from an "innate consciousness" Fallibility. I have an innate ability to recognize a human figure at a distance but this doesn't mean I'm not sometimes fooled by shadows. I have an innate ability to recognize the taste of healthy food but it also happens that an episode of food poisoning has left me unable to taste avocado as anything other than poisonous (which it is not).