Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (58360)	9/17/2002 2:21:45 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In the end it is up to those who predominate in power to decide what is ethical under the circumstances. This is the way it has always been... This is the only part of your post I have serious disagreement with. If you had qualified it with "ethical for them," I might agree. But maybe not. For example, the US has signed treaties which limit our ethical behaviors. For example, treaties prohibiting certain kinds of chemical weapons, the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, etc. Suppose we decided today that we needed to use banned chemical weapons in Baghdad to save American lives -- that a ground invasion without the use of those chemical weapons would be enormously costly, but that if we, as a hypothetical, sprayed a disabling but not deadly nerve agent on the city right before invading we could, again hypothetically, save 5,000 American military lives. It would certainly be pragmatic to do that. Would it be ethical? I think even if we decided to do it, that would not in and of itself make it ethical. And I think even if we self-admitted that it was unethical, even illegal under our treaties and international law, we might do it anyhow.