17:31
@waxeagle Oddly, the clearest example from my own life comes from a little thing that happened when I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses. And the "ethical issue" is one that I would not now consider ethically problematic (except insofar as eating meat is problematic at all, but that's a side issue). I could very easily make up a fictional version of this which would be more generalisable, but I'll tell the story as it actually happened, within the Witness context.
So, a bunch of us were out in the pretty village of Clonaslee, in the lee of the Slieve Bloom mountains, witnessing (a.k.a. knocking on doors), and we stopped for lunch in a little café, where we had a full Irish breakfast (a plate of very tasty greece).
One of the consituent parts of a full Irish is a slice of black pudding, which contains pig blood. In fact, it contains very little else. We, being good Witnesses, left these slices uneaten on the sides of our plates. (Why we were all having full Irish breakfasts I do not know. Maybe we weren't, but that's how I remember it. Tip: never have a full Irish before noon: it's too much.)
One of the guys was from Canada. He remarked that when he'd first moved to Ireland, he'd had no idea what black pudding was, and had eaten it a few times.
One of is (I think it might have been me, but I wouldn't swear to it), asked him whether he felt guilty about that.
"Ah, no," he said. He'd had no idea he was breaking the commandment, so he felt no guilt or discomfort about it.
And I ... I wasn't comfortable with his answer.
Even though I completely agreed with his reasoning.
Oedipus had no reason to feel guilt for marrying his mother, but surely we would not say that shame was inapropriate?
Even if you're not guilty, surely you should feel some discomfort?
And if you feel no discomfort, does that not mean that you don't actually take the law seriously? It means that to you it's just a silly formality, with no actual ethical dimension. Or so it seems to me, anyway.
Anecdote: I've had black pudding since. I don't like it.