In his Under Western Eyes, Polish-British writer Joseph Conrad (author of Heart of Darkness) writes insightfully about the nature of a vexing ethical dilemma:  how do we balance our fears of tyranny with our fears of ourselves?  As Conrad tells the story, when a man named Haldin comes to a younger man, Razumov, to tell him that it was he who threw the bomb that assassinated a leading governmental figure, Razumov must make a choice.  Should he, out of fear of the government, betray this person and give his name and location to the authorities?  Or should he obey the dictates of his conscience and not say a thing?  Should he elevate his hopes for a better world over his fears of being destroyed by this one?

     Although I will not spoil the plot for you, I share this much to make a point about the nature of morality.  As numerous ethicists have observed, every human being on this planet has a moral sense.  That is, every person has a sense of right or wrong, however he or she defines them.  Humans are inherently moral beings:  we make moral choices and decisions.  As do, after a fashion, some of our fellow animals in the mammalian kingdom.

     Only the human being, as far as we know, however, has the option of rendering these choices in the frame of a larger point.  Only the human being can look beyond his or her individual choice to a bigger picture of moral virtue and probity.  And this makes all the difference:  whatever choice Razumov makes, he will make in light of a transcendence that pervades all that he knows.  As do all of us.

     As readers of this novel as well as Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment know, morality is only secure and meaningful as the adequacy of that in which it is grounded, be it transcendent or immanent.

     And if we are finite, which has the bigger point?