Posts tagged politics
This is an older ethics question (it has been passed around the net in a shorter misleading way). However, this is written in a form that is more detailed and genuine. It’s a little long but worth the read.
a fun test to assess your ethical judgement
Please note that this item contains misleading and exaggerated information (ack Mick and Lynn for assistance), so use it with care, and ensure people are warned after answering the puzzle that certain ‘facts’ are historically unreliable. The item appears here – and can arguably be used for ethical learning and demonstration – because it is a popular and accessible puzzle, and despite the exaggerations the principle lesson remains valid, i.e., that we all too quickly make quick ethical judgments based on our own conditioned ideas of what is good and bad. Quick judgements and subjective criteria rarely give reliable assessment of actual goodness and potential.
Two ethical questions:
Question 1: If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had eight children already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Remember your honest answer and go to question 2.
Question 2: It is time to elect the world leader, and yours is the deciding vote. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:
- Candidate A: He associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologers. He’s had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks up to ten Martinis a day.
- Candidate B: He was ejected from office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a large amounts of whisky every evening.
- Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He’s a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn’t had any extra-marital affairs.
Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide, then see the answer below.
Candidate A is Franklin D Roosevelt, Candidate B is Winston Churchill, and Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
And by the way the answer to the abortion question… If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.
Please note: This ethics puzzle became popular during the 1990′s when it was widely circulated in various formats by email. Certain historical facts in the puzzle however are not correct, notably relating to Beethoven’s background, which while humble was not nearly so disadvantaged as the puzzle suggests. Similarly the negative aspects of Roosevelt and Churchill are exaggerated, and Hitler would have found it difficult to conduct any extra-marital affairs given that he was first married in a bunker shortly before his death.
The points made by the puzzle are nevertheless valid, which is why it remains on this page.
We all tend to make ethical judgements based on conditioned and subjective views of what is right and proper.
And we all tend to make snap decisions in assessing whether something is right or wrong, before seeking the full story.
The need to examine what really lies beneath the surface when judging good and bad will become increasingly important as ethics and ethical issues become genuinely popular mainstream concerns.
Powerful organisations, politicians and the media are very clever at ‘spinning’ and distorting information so as to control public opinion.
Therefore modern ethical issues such as corruption, environmental action, humanitarianism, the excesses of globalisation, etc., cannot be judged on face-value and what the political and corporate leaders say, nor even by any measurement and survey instruments over which they have influence.
Judging important matters such as ethics on the surface is no basis for proper judgement, moreover we make it very easy for those who seek to deceive and exploit us when we fail to question and examine things properly before deciding.
Transparency, scrutiny, and a public demand for truth are the drivers for real ethical accountability.
This will be for Democrat’s and Republican’s
I just want to take a moment and ask, Why?
Why must we pass emails and Facebook posts from one person to another that are designed to sway peoples views (Or reinforce them) using hyperbole and propaganda?
Why must we divide our country? Why must we continue this tradition of telling your political base that this is a all or nothing game. (By the way it is not a game) Why tell people that we must change things before “THIS COUNTRY IS TURNED INTO A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!” when that is not happening? (note: we were taught about the boy who cried wolf, but apparently never learned the lesson)
Why do people continue to believe this rhetoric, when time and time again NOTHING CHANGES!!
These emails bother me so much because the are just lies designed to put fear into people and sway them to their side (Both sides use this method NOT just Democrats or just Republicans).
This countries populace needs to see that the two sides are not as far apart as these emails would have you believe. Most of them are made from a person who wants ONE particular thing. Like the above email is someone who just cares about guns. They could care less about the rest of the country as long as they get to keep their guns (I am pro-gun by the way, But I am Pro-America first). Why don’t we see that someone who has an agenda that benifits one small aspect of life should not be listened to?
I believe (and I hope you all agree) that we should stop
the propaganda and start the conversation!!!
Sorry to all if this maybe turned into a rant of sorts
Sneak attack: surprise amendment makes CISPA worse, then it is voted and passed a day ahead of schedule. Congress just deleted the Fourth Amendment
By Cory Doctorow at 4:20 pm Thursday, Apr 26
In a sneak attack, the vote on CISPA (America’s far-reaching, invasive Internet surveillance bill) was pushed up by a day. The bill was hastily amended, making it much worse, then passed on a rushed vote. Techdirt’s Leigh Beadon does a very good job of explaining what just happened to America:
Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for “cybersecurity” or “national security” purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.
Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime”. Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power.
Copied From BoingBoing.com