What is truly ironic about this question is that morally/ethically indefensible decisions are often made public anyway. One of the most prominent ones is of course, war. No offense to any of our good service men, but essentially they are trained to see their enemy as less of a person so its easier to kill them--two immoral acts in one. Not only is it corruption of peoples minds, governments often try to justify war with some frivolous reason.

Moreover, most of the body counts we see on the news are civilians, which is often disheartening when seeking to justify an actual cause to the war.

I would, only if it broke the law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anarchy for the win.

We had a case quite recently where a worker at GCHQ ratted out the fact that we were (OMG) eavesdropping on our European allies. I'm really not clear what she thought should be done differently. Nor why she felt that this heinous crime permitted her to ignore her own legal obligation NOT TO TELL ANYONE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Privacy needs to be maintained. No one has the right to know I what I plan om doing. If I break the law then arrest me after I break the law. Also why the hell would you be invading the privacy of allies. They are allies, and there should be a level of trust. If you don't trust them then they are not allies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It is not my intention to offend you when I say that I find that position rather naive. I might even go so far as to accuse you of inconsistency, given your other statements on this forum regarding the general calibre of humanity. One's allies cannot and should not be relied upon like knights of legend. They cannot be presumed to act consistently in your support. Nor, in a respectful alliance OUGHT they be presumed upon.

 

Therefore it is both right and proper to spy upon one's allies, within reason. Electronic eavesdropping strikes me as well within the bounds of decency. The United States, for example, eavesdrops on the UK yet the fact does not perturb us in the slightest.

 

~~

 

The Dude said

"No offense to any of our good service men, but essentially they are trained to see their enemy as less of a person so its easier to kill them--two immoral acts in one. Not only is it corruption of peoples minds, governments often try to justify war with some frivolous reason. "

 

Not all militaries train by dehumanising their opponents. Many simply state that war is job which must be done. Even a cursory glance at history will reveal many examples of soldiers killing when necessary, and then immediately acting with compassion during cease-fires, or after surrender.

 

Nevertheless you do make an interesting point. Governments frequently commit acts one might consider immoral if you thought about it.

I would happily accept a briefcase full of cash for my silence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Did I hear a, arr, briefcase opening?" - Mayor Quimby

 

In some ways if they're big (or determined) enough to bribe you with so much money I would take it cos I would kinda fear their power.

If I found it morally wrong, yes I would expose it. But it depends. If I feel it was necessary in order to prevent a greater evil or do good, then I'm not so sure.

i think you should remove the moral portion of the responses. in particular, governments and corporations cannot act morally. rather, they are amoral by definition. morals are personal beliefs that vary widely from culture to culture and, more importantly, person to person. however, both governments and corporations are required to represent everyone equally, which means they must tolerate varying moral belief systems.

 

ethics are accepted standards that cross all moral belief systems. in a sense, ethics are the replacement for morals within corporations and governments. they are a sort of ruleset by which everyone agrees to conduct whatever business it is they conduct.

 

that said, i cannot vote for "morally and ethically" anything as morals and ethics are not always in agreement. for example, there is nothing morally incorrect with dating one's superior - if two people love each other, they should be allowed to act on it. ethically, however, this is a big no-no in just about any business (or government). there are just as many cases of the opposite that can be discussed but i'll save them for the imagination.

 

were i to witness an ethical violation, i would most definitely report it. i have actually been witness to several over the years, though usually in grey area topics...

 

taks

If there is no trust then there are only enemies.

Well only countries that naturally act in self interest. At times those interests may coincide and they could be called allies, other times they dont and may be at odds with each other.

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

No offense to any of our good service men, but essentially they are trained to see their enemy as less of a person so its easier to kill them--two immoral acts in one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spoken like a man who's seen Full Metal Jacket and not much else.

If you are not with me, you're my enemy!

If you are not with me, you're my enemy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I want to be with you but you keep pushing me away :'( why Gabrielle, why?

 

 

Oh Gabby you're breaking my heart!

No compromises. Not even in Armageddon.

If you are not with me, you're my enemy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I want to be with you but you keep pushing me away :'( why Gabrielle, why?

 

 

Oh Gabby you're breaking my heart!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's truely sad when you can quote lines from movies and games. Does life really suck this much?

Edited January 2, 200620 yr by Gabrielle