View Poll Results: Ethics in Government? Who's?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Do you think ethics in government should be representative of the voters ethics?

    8 80.00%
  • Do you think government ethics should be different than the voters personal ethics?

    2 20.00%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

  1. #21
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by mikhail View Post
    Its a representative democracy as in the public elect a group of people to run things as they see fit.
    What is?

    The arbitrary "Government" that Catawba asks questions about?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #22
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I think you may be right that perhaps I didn't phase the poll questions as well as I might have. And I also agree with Harry's cardinal virtues as being a good standard for government and their policies. I think they are the same virtues that most of us teach our children.
    Excellent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    My observations have been that many think the government is not bound by the same ethics we teach our children.
    I would agree, and state that I personally think that it is not. But I think that it should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That it is ok for the government to kill others because they have something you want.
    I assume you are referring to the wars/conflicts in Iraq?
    In any case, it is never right to force others into giving (then again, it’s not actually “giving” if you force them, is it?) you something you desire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That it is ok to attack someone before they attack you.
    In some cases of military strategy/tactics (and other cases, probably), it might be. As an example, suppose there was a case of "we are sure they are going to attack us, but we can blunt the damage by attacking first". That is very risky, because what if they were NOT going to attack. Many problems might be solved by attacking first, and many might be caused as well.
    Risky, I say, risky.
    But risk is part of life.
    Bla, I say, bla.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That it is ok to be greedy, let the less fortunate fend for themselves.
    Well, no, it is not usually considered ok to be greedy...But I suppose it depends on how you define greedy.

    One who has certain opinions might say that it is "greedy" for people to want the government to pay for more of their needs/wants if they can't, because the money to do so comes from those who already have it (to an extent).

    Is that “greed”, albeit through the proxy of government?

    /shrug
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #23
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    In some cases of military strategy/tactics (and other cases, probably), it might be. As an example, suppose there was a case of "we are sure they are going to attack us, but we can blunt the damage by attacking first". That is very risky, because what if they were NOT going to attack. Many problems might be solved by attacking first, and many might be caused as well.
    Risky, I say, risky.
    But risk is part of life.
    Bla, I say, bla.
    Then conversely we should teach our children that it might be best to start popping people that they suspect (without proof) might be a threat to them in the future?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #24
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I do not believe in man made climate change and really don't want to debate that right now.

    There are to many people that don't question everything.
    Everyone should be asking "why" instead of taking everything as fact.
    I agree with questioning everything, but once the evidence has been established, it is not wisdom, in my opinion to ignore it to one's own detriment.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #25
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Then conversely we should teach our children that it might be best to start popping people that they suspect (without proof) might be a threat to them in the future?
    That's not what I said.

    I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    ...suppose there was a case of "we are sure they are going to attack us, but we can blunt the damage by attacking first"....
    Note the bold.
    I later said that they could be wrong about it, and that attacking if someone was NOT about to attack would cause issues.

    That said, in a war, attacking first is a perfectly reasonable strategy. For example, your army and the opposing army are on two sides of a battlefield. you could wait and set up defensive positions (if you haven't already), or you could attempt to attack and surprise him before he can set up HIS defensive positions. Depending on intelligence, scouts, and the like, these decisions can be made to the best advantage of your army.

    Now, obviously that is far more straightforward than most any real-world battle. But you get the idea.

    And really, I was assuming that most or all of the people in charge of deciding on such had been taught as children NOT to attack just because they thought someone was going to be a threat. Among other things.

    Thus actually making such a decision would be harder, and they would be more likely to avoid mistakes.

    Wishful thinking on my part, perhaps.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  6. #26
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    That's not what I said.

    I said:
    Note the bold.
    I later said that they could be wrong about it, and that attacking if someone was NOT about to attack would cause issues.

    That said, in a war, attacking first is a perfectly reasonable strategy. For example, your army and the opposing army are on two sides of a battlefield. you could wait and set up defensive positions (if you haven't already), or you could attempt to attack and surprise him before he can set up HIS defensive positions. Depending on intelligence, scouts, and the like, these decisions can be made to the best advantage of your army.
    What if the other side was of no threat at all, and the intelligence is altered to appear that they were, and we kill hundreds of thousands unnecessarily?
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-19-10 at 11:24 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #27
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    What if the other side was of no threat at all, and the intelligence is altered to appear that they were, and we kill hundreds of thousands unnecessarily?
    Well, if you are in a war, then obviously the "other side" is a threat. It wouldn't be a war otherwise. It would just be you beating on some random target for an unknown and/or completely illogical reason.

    However, if intelligence/info regarding where and when a threat from your opponent in a war has or is going to show up is completely or partially faulty, then you could end up attacking a completely innocent target, for no gain in the war.

    That said, I don't claim to be an expert on military and/or political strategy, so there might actually be a good reason for attacking some target other than one which would hurt your opponent in a war.

    I suppose you could attack an ally of your opponent, to perhaps distract your opponent into coming to their aid, pulling your actual opponent off balance. But if they are an ally of your opponent, they are your opponent...unless you can convince them to change sides, which attacking them might not help with.

    /shrug
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  8. #28
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Well, if you are in a war, then obviously the "other side" is a threat. It wouldn't be a war otherwise. It would just be you beating on some random target for an unknown and/or completely illogical reason.
    Or purposefully targeting another for an unspoken reason.

    However, if intelligence/info regarding where and when a threat from your opponent in a war has or is going to show up is completely or partially faulty, then you could end up attacking a completely innocent target, for no gain in the war.
    What if the attack on another country had nothing to do with a threat? What if the purpose of the attack was to remove the government that prevented you access to resources that you were vitally interested in?

    That said, I don't claim to be an expert on military and/or political strategy, so there might actually be a good reason for attacking some target other than one which would hurt your opponent in a war.
    Such as their resources that your economy is dependent upon?

    I suppose you could attack an ally of your opponent, to perhaps distract your opponent into coming to their aid, pulling your actual opponent off balance. But if they are an ally of your opponent, they are your opponent...unless you can convince them to change sides, which attacking them might not help with.

    /shrug
    What if your opponent is of no threat to any country?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #29
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Or purposefully targeting another for an unspoken reason.
    Well, in my example, you would be the one targeting (if you were in charge), so not speaking the reason would mean nothing.
    If you are speaking of another scenario, wherein you are a (very) small piece of the process which decides what, if any, war(s) to fight...Well, then it would probably be a bit off-putting to see your country go to war for no known reason. I don't think that is possible, however, given the system of government we have in the USA. There would have to be a reason given, or people would not go along.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    What if the attack on another country had nothing to do with a threat? What if the purpose of the attack was to remove the government that prevented you access to resources that you were vitally interested in?
    That would be far different from my hypothetical situation, but I address it a bit below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Such as their resources that your economy is dependent upon?
    It depends, I would think, on many factors. If there is a resource that you need, and your closest ally won’t let you acquire any from the source within their territory, I would say your diplomats suck @#$.
    If, on the other hand, there is a resource that you need within the territory of an enemy, denying them access to such would be good strategy, in some cases.
    Then there is the middle ground, where those neither enemy nor friend lie. In that case, far more factors enter the equation.
    For example:
    • Do you want the potential target to be a friend?
    • Which way do they lean now, friend or enemy?
    • How much of the resource in question is available in their territory?
    • Can you afford the negative (if any) publicity from attacking them?
    • Do you need the positive (if any) publicity from attacking them?
    • Will your actions drive other potential friends/enemies further from or closer to the actions you wish/do not wish them to take?
    • Does the balance of all the factors tip in your favor?

    And others factors I haven’t thought of, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    What if your opponent is of no threat to any country?
    Depends on the “threat” type. There is military, on the one hand…And many others, depending on who is terming something a “threat”.

    • Could be economic, via cheaper production of an item of trade, or monopoly due to location on an item of trade.
    • Could be political, in that their system of government puts the lie to yours, causing unrest in your population.

    That said, if an opponent poses no threat whatsoever, I wouldn’t see the point in attacking them. Unless you are trying to build an empire, and just want their stuff. But that’s another discussion entirely.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #30
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Ethics in Government, Should there be any? Who's should they be?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Well, in my example, you would be the one targeting (if you were in charge), so not speaking the reason would mean nothing.
    If you are speaking of another scenario, wherein you are a (very) small piece of the process which decides what, if any, war(s) to fight...Well, then it would probably be a bit off-putting to see your country go to war for no known reason. I don't think that is possible, however, given the system of government we have in the USA. There would have to be a reason given, or people would not go along.
    Happens all the time. All the unethical government has to do is play off people's fear and withhold intelligence that shows the stated threat is not borne out by the facts.

    That would be far different from my hypothetical situation, but I address it a bit below.

    It depends, I would think, on many factors. If there is a resource that you need, and your closest ally won’t let you acquire any from the source within their territory, I would say your diplomats suck @#$.
    Agreed.


    If, on the other hand, there is a resource that you need within the territory of an enemy, denying them access to such would be good strategy, in some cases.
    Define enemy please. What if the only threat to you the "enemy" represents is blocking your access to their property.

    Then there is the middle ground, where those neither enemy nor friend lie. In that case, far more factors enter the equation.
    For example:
    • Do you want the potential target to be a friend?
    • Which way do they lean now, friend or enemy?
    • How much of the resource in question is available in their territory?
    • Can you afford the negative (if any) publicity from attacking them?
    • Do you need the positive (if any) publicity from attacking them?
    • Will your actions drive other potential friends/enemies further from or closer to the actions you wish/do not wish them to take?
    • Does the balance of all the factors tip in your favor?

    And others factors I haven’t thought of, of course.
    Please clarify what you mean in the item I emphasized above.

    Depends on the “threat” type. There is military, on the one hand…And many others, depending on who is terming something a “threat”.
    What type of threat you would teach your children to take preemptive violent action against?

    • Could be economic, via cheaper production of an item of trade, or monopoly due to location on an item of trade.
    • Please explain further.

    • Could be political, in that their system of government puts the lie to yours, causing unrest in your population.
  11. That sounds like all other governments should be complimentary of ours or be subject to war. But that's probably not what you meant so please explain further.

    That said, if an opponent poses no threat whatsoever, I wouldn’t see the point in attacking them. Unless you are trying to build an empire, and just want their stuff. But that’s another discussion entirely.
    What if they blocked access to their property which you are dependent on to sustain your economy?
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •