• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Ethics in Government? Who's?

  • Do you think ethics in government should be representative of the voters ethics?

    Votes: 6 85.7%

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

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
Catawba

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This poll is for the people that think there should be some kind of ethics in government.

If you feel ethics are not necessary, feel free to say so and list your reasons.

For those of you that think there should be ethics in government ~

Do you think ethics in government (including their policies and programs) should be representative of the voters ethics,
or, do you think government's ethics should be different than the voters personal ethics?


And please talk about your reasons for either vote.
 
Other.
The ethics of the Stoic Philosophers are probably the supreme of what anyone could consider right.

"the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions,"

"The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne)"

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism]Stoicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Other.
The ethics of the Stoic Philosophers are probably the supreme of what anyone could consider right.

"the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions,"

"The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne)"

Stoicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Where do you see we have veered from the four cardinal virtues? Or, do you think we are right on track?
 
Last edited:
NO! There should be no ethics in government. Anyone who gets elected should be able to sell his vote to the highest bidder openly. He shouldn't have to pay taxes or obey the laws he's making for the rest of us. He should be able to commit felony perjury and see no consequences, he should be able to keep wads of bribe money in his freezer, he should be able to ignore every single campaign pledge he makes.

/sarcasm
 
Democracy means just that.
 
Apocalypse said:
Democracy means just that.
Click to expand...

Do you think the government operates under the ethics of the electorate?

Does the government operate under the same ethics we teach our children?

What do you see that needs to change?
 
Catawba said:
Where do you see we have veered from the four cardinal virtues? Or, do you think we are right on track?
Click to expand...

We have not held those virtues at all, look anywhere and they are replaced with personal, superficial desires.

People are not happy with what they have and they seek to take it from others.
That isn't limited to rich or poor, it's happening on all levels.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We have not held those virtues at all, look anywhere and they are replaced with personal, superficial desires.

People are not happy with what they have and they seek to take it from others.
That isn't limited to rich or poor, it's happening on all levels.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in specific examples of where our government's policies conflict with the 4 cardinal virtues, which I believe are the same virtues (ethics) we teach our children. And I agree our government's policies should be the same.

In your statement above that I bolded, are you referring to our foreign policy?
 
Catawba said:
I would be interested in specific examples of where our government's policies conflict with the 4 cardinal virtues, which I believe are the same virtues (ethics) we teach our children. And I agree our government's policies should be the same.

In your statement above that I bolded, are you referring to our foreign policy?
Click to expand...

Everything it seems, is an attempt to do that.
Whether it's cash for clunkers, overseas influence of other countries etc.

Just about anything a government does comes down to money and those competing interests seem to seek to secure more than what they earned at the point of the federal gun.

I do not believe that children are taught those virtues but that is just me.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Everything it seems, is an attempt to do that.
Whether it's cash for clunkers, overseas influence of other countries etc.

Just about anything a government does comes down to money and those competing interests seem to seek to secure more than what they earned at the point of the federal gun.

I do not believe that children are taught those virtues but that is just me.
Click to expand...

I believe we do teach our children those those virtues today, but that we allow different standards by our government.

If we are to follow the virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance, would we let our economy fail, would that be wise?

We are in agreement about our military dominance of other countries for their resources.

While looking at ways to improve the economy, wouldn't it be wise to also look at ways both to reduce our dependence on a declining supply of oil and reducing our contribution to climate change?

In this way, the clunker car program addressed 3 major problems with one stone.
 
Anyone who works any job should act like a professional while on the job. Part of professionalism is the maintenance of one's personal ethics. A government job is just like any other in that a person should conduct themselves in a serious manner.

In terms of the politics. That, I believe, should simply be a reflection of the desires of the population that the government represents. If people want more government, fine, if they want less, fine. Whatever the government does has benefits and drawbacks (meaning there are certain benefits in having a large government and other benefits in a smaller one, the same with drawbacks), but it should be up to the population to soberly and thoughtfully decide what is best for themselves and for the country as a whole and vote or petition the government accordingly.

If people are honest and considerate, than the ethics will mostly take care of itself.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Anyone who works any job should act like a professional while on the job. Part of professionalism is the maintenance of one's personal ethics. A government job is just like any other in that a person should conduct themselves in a serious manner.

In terms of the politics. That, I believe, should simply be a reflection of the desires of the population that the government represents. If people want more government, fine, if they want less, fine. Whatever the government does has benefits and drawbacks (meaning there are certain benefits in having a large government and other benefits in a smaller one, the same with drawbacks), but it should be up to the population to soberly and thoughtfully decide what is best for themselves and for the country as a whole and vote or petition the government accordingly.

If people are honest and considerate, than the ethics will mostly take care of itself.
Click to expand...

Good post and I don't see anything I disagree with except I don't think it works out this way in practice, from my perspective at least, in observing some governmental policies.
 
Catawba said:
Good post and I don't see anything I disagree with except I don't think it works out this way in practice, from my perspective at least, in observing some governmental policies.
Click to expand...

Yep. We have too many special interests preventing the system from functioning. (Unfortunately the supreme court just made it worse :( )
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
This poll is for the people that think there should be some kind of ethics in government.

If you feel ethics are not necessary, feel free to say so and list your reasons.

For those of you that think there should be ethics in government ~

Do you think ethics in government (including their policies and programs) should be representative of the voters ethics,
or, do you think government's ethics should be different than the voters personal ethics?


And please talk about your reasons for either vote.
Click to expand...
there isnt a whole lot of ethics in most governments, except for a few like venezuela.
 
cope2 said:
there isnt a whole lot of ethics in most governments, except for a few like venezuela.
Click to expand...

How does this affect US government ethics?
 
Can't really choose one or the other…

Do you think ethics in government should be representative of the voters ethics? Of course.
Do you think government ethics should be different than the voters personal ethics? Of course.

See, the thing is, the ethics of voters vary from one end of the ethics spectrum to the other.

So, really, your choices could mean anything.

And so could mine.

Personally, I liked the post by Harry Guerilla:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Other.
The ethics of the Stoic Philosophers are probably the supreme of what anyone could consider right.

"the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions,"

"The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne)"

Stoicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

But someone else might not like those ethical suggestions, and might thus not call them "ethics".
 
The Mark said:
Can't really choose one or the other…

Do you think ethics in government should be representative of the voters ethics? Of course.
Do you think government ethics should be different than the voters personal ethics? Of course.

See, the thing is, the ethics of voters vary from one end of the ethics spectrum to the other.

So, really, your choices could mean anything.

And so could mine.

Personally, I liked the post by Harry Guerilla:


But someone else might not like those ethical suggestions, and might thus not call them "ethics".
Click to expand...

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.

My observations have been that many think the government is not bound by the same ethics we teach our children. That it is ok for the government to kill others because they have something you want. That it is ok to attack someone before they attack you. That it is ok to be greedy, let the less fortunate fend for themselves.
 
It doesn't matter. The ethics they portray on the surface level could just as easily be false. Government is too complex for most people to follow these days because it has gotten so big. The several hundred page drafts in federal congress are a good example of that.
 
Catawba said:
I believe we do teach our children those those virtues today, but that we allow different standards by our government.

If we are to follow the virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance, would we let our economy fail, would that be wise?
Click to expand...

I can't find many examples of anyone holding those personal ethics.

It's representative in all aspects of our lives, the belief that "stuff" will make you happy.
Most people want "stuff" and want the government to help them get that "stuff."

Happiness is not defined by how much money or stuff you have but how you live your life.
This type of thought is considered antiquated from what I've seen.

Catawba said:
We are in agreement about our military dominance of other countries for their resources.

While looking at ways to improve the economy, wouldn't it be wise to also look at ways both to reduce our dependence on a declining supply of oil and reducing our contribution to climate change?

In this way, the clunker car program addressed 3 major problems with one stone.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Its a representative democracy as in the public elect a group of people to run things as they see fit.
 
mikhail said:
Its a representative democracy as in the public elect a group of people to run things as they see fit.
Click to expand...
What is?

The arbitrary "Government" that Catawba asks questions about?
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excellent.

Catawba said:
My observations have been that many think the government is not bound by the same ethics we teach our children.
Click to expand...
I would agree, and state that I personally think that it is not. But I think that it should be.

Catawba said:
That it is ok for the government to kill others because they have something you want.
Click to expand...
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.

Catawba said:
That it is ok to attack someone before they attack you.
Click to expand...
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.

Catawba said:
That it is ok to be greedy, let the less fortunate fend for themselves.
Click to expand...
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
 
The Mark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catawba said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's not what I said.

I said:
The Mark said:
...suppose there was a case of "we are sure they are going to attack us, but we can blunt the damage by attacking first"....
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom