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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (67721)	2/11/2003 12:58:55 PM
From: runes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

<<First I am not a fan of US bashing...>> <<Not making either side happy is a bit frustrating...>? This is actually part of what I was getting at - by opening up this can of worms you would get a whole lot of polarizing discussion which would distract from the issue at hand. As for the US acting in it's "best" interest and selecting the "best" man - I will point out to you that "best" is always a subjective decision based on what the current "needs" are deemed to be. In the 50's, 60's and 70's "best" was "democracy" which devolved to "not communist/socialist" - battles in the Cold War. In the 80's to present it has been more of a business/free trade/Globalization (which brought oil to the forefront). And in the new millenium we may have seen a shift to the "War on Terror" (too soon to be sure). Noble goals all but, as they say, the Devil is in the details. ...And here I will agree with you - there is an overriding tendency to confuse "best for them" with "best for us". But that is no a US problem - it is a problem of human nature. Each of us tends to see solutions from the perspective of "this is what I know will work (for me)". And this now brings us to morals as a means of controlling the tendency to confuse "best" with "best for us". I contend that morals and morality are the problem and not the solution. My target point is the classic "Whats good for GM is good for the country!". That was certainly a valid MORAL VALUE for the CEO of GM to hold - it implies that he is trying to run the company in a manner that is consistent with the needs of the country. But it would be unETHICAL for our government to embrace that value as they are elected to support the values of the general population. ...Morals are the standards that we chose to hold our personal (or group)) behavior to. And they tend to be subjective in nature. Ethics are the standards we adopt in order to accomodate others have morals that are different from our own and are much more objective. My friend disapproves of sharing dishes at a restaurant but I actually like the idea of a group inspired lunch palate. So he gets his own dish and the rest of us share. Ethics requires that we abstain from any alienating commentary (unlike Bush and Rumsfeld who have strong moral values but are ethically challenged). ...Unfortunately the US and the World have drifted away from ethics (which can often become confusing and frustrating) and reverted back to morality. Which is why we are hearing so much talk about Evil and the Great Satan and the such and the like. But my ethics tell me to stand firm and try to steer the discussions back to objective criteria - 1) Let us hold Sadam to account for his past crimes but not by punishing the Iraqi people. 2) Let us stop Sadam from future transgressions but keep in mind that the Iraqi people will pay a price for the security of others in the region. Ethics demands that we try to minimize that price eventhough Sadam is intent on maximizing that cost. PS - <<expect it to bite you>>. I contend that, no matter what - interfere, don't interfere, chose option A or B or C or D - you have to expect to get bit. The world is a closed system with a lot of angry frustrated people. And here we sit fat dumb and happy. That, by itself, is the equivalent of a "kick me!" sign. PPS - Hutu/Tutsi - I don't know the details but I would bet that, at the core, it is a tribal conflict being played out with the technology of advanced civilizations. ...But I will tell you that - "We didn't cause it" is a moral justification for staying on the sidelines. The ethical one was a combination of "There's nothing we could do that would lessen the carnage" and "There are other areas where we have a better chance to make a difference" (Yugoslavia). ...Which is more palatable?