personal ethics v government ethics

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

personal ethics v government ethics

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> personal ethics v government ethics

Page: [1]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 11:45:34 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

.....i have ben thinking about international treaties, ie the Geneva Convention, Nuclear non-proliferation, to name but two. Is it fair and/or reasonable to expect governments to treat them as promises in the same way as individuals make promises or not?
We know we can respect a 'man of his word'.....should we respect governments whose word can't be trusted?

Post #: 1

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 11:49:36 AM

Arpig

Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline

A Gvt that actually honours its commitments....now there's a lovely fantasy

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 2

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 12:27:48 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.....i have ben thinking about international treaties, ie the Geneva Convention, Nuclear non-proliferation, to name but two. Is it fair and/or reasonable to expect governments to treat them as promises in the same way as individuals make promises or not?
We know we can respect a 'man of his word'.....should we respect governments whose word can't be trusted?

An example of a "man of his word"?

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 3

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 1:00:05 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

...damn good question......for my part, not sure if i can easily name a famous person, but i have met people in my personal life, both male and female, who could be considered a 'person of their word'......they're generally the ones you call when you don't know what to do.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 4

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 1:17:47 PM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Its perfectly fair and reasonable to expect the state, which enables lawsuits to be filed amongst ourselves for breach of agreements, to fulfil its own word as the arbiter and upholder of the law.

Problem is though, there is no one to arbitrate and uphold the law against a state which breaches its agreements. And so any adherence to an agreement by a state is either due to good faith or the damage or threat which might ensure from a breach. I tend to think the latter is more likely the case than the former.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 5

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 1:23:32 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

Why pretend that they are anything other than what they are?

Treaties are legal/political records drawn up to align competing interests for the situation at the moment. They are full of loopholes, not intended to be permanent, subject to interpretation, and at the mercy of suceeding administrations.

But if someone wants to adopt the simplistic worldview that treaties are no different than the solemn promise of a 10 year old to always be a good boy/girl, then go for it.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 6

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 1:27:50 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...damn good question......for my part, not sure if i can easily name a famous person, but i have met people in my personal life, both male and female, who could be considered a 'person of their word'......they're generally the ones you call when you don't know what to do.

I will take a stab at this.

For example: I get elected King based on a mandate from the masses. The people expect certain things from me. I personally think that if I do not keep my promises, the people have the right to remove me from office.

I have been told by many that I know that they consider me a person of my word. If I say I am going to do something, I am there.

It becomes worrisome to me to apply this same logic to the population of nation-states. Lets say I engage in a military takeover of a country in Africa or South America or wherever.

Having put my iron bootheel on the necks of the citizens, I go to the World Bank to borrow money. I sign a document. They give me the check. I buy my wife 400,000 pairs of shoes. I line my Cadillac with fur. I arm my military with the finest gold-inlayed AK-47s. I move into 40 palaces spread throughout my country. I build the most advanced torture facilities on the planet. I send my goons out to bring me a new virgin every night.

My country eventually tires of me. Drags me into the street. Puts a bullet in my head. Throws my rotting corpse in the dumpster.

They hold democratic elections. They elect somebody who is good and true and right for the people who institutes health care, education, monetary reforms, land redistribution, job guarantees, etc.

The World Bank comes up and says "pay us that money you borrowed." The new leader goes "I didnt borrow it." The World Bank goes "Your country did. You run the country. So you did. Q.E.D." The new leader refuses.

The American media depicts this person as a vile scoundrel. A criminal. An evil warlord. The Second Coming of Satan. Whatever. The US military provides arms to insurgents. Assassination attempts. Eventually, one succeeds and a new leader is put in place.

He goes to the World Bank and says "I need to build up my country to pay you back, loan me more."

They do. He builds the palaces, torture facilities, shoes, makes a few late interest payments, etc.

Rinse, repeat as needed.

So the question in my mind then becomes does the nation-state owe the World Bank that money? They did not sign for it and had no democratic choice in whether the loan document was signed.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 7

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 1:46:38 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

But if someone wants to adopt the simplistic worldview that treaties are no different than the solemn promise of a 10 year old to always be a good boy/girl, then go for it.

.......actually i was hoping for a discussion to delineate in what ways such agreements differ. However, morality and ethics are often simplistic...clearly there is a gray area where such ideas impinge upon reality......but do you really believe that personal virtues such as honesty have absolutely no relation to governence?

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Post #: 8

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 1:47:58 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

...my thoughts on the function of the World Bank are probably not repeatable.....even here

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 9

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 2:14:02 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

I don't think the U.S. should get involved in Treaties very often.
Right now we would have to go to war if we had a Treaty with some small third world country like "Crapistan."
And of course they would expect military "foreign aid" complements of the U.S. Taxpayers.
And we'd have to supplement their 1,800 man "army" with our own Troops!
I hope the *next* President starts getting us out of a lot of trade deals and treaties.
We simply can't afford this stuff anymore.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 10

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 2:16:47 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

Fair enough...so long as the US also doesn't mind giving up access to markets that it wouldn't have but for its treaty obligations........
i think that the USA could survive relatively comfortably with an isolationist policy, although not quite as comfortable as it is now......

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 11

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 2:42:54 PM

livenlearn

Posts: 20
Joined: 5/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.....i have ben thinking about international treaties, ie the Geneva Convention, Nuclear non-proliferation, to name but two. Is it fair and/or reasonable to expect governments to treat them as promises in the same way as individuals make promises or not?
We know we can respect a 'man of his word'.....should we respect governments whose word can't be trusted?

I am actually going to answer this more in detail once I have had a chance to think it out more, but, for some reason, this kept running through my head as I read this thread.

How hard is it to make a promise to ONE person and keep that promise?
Now, take that same person, and the same promise and use it this way:

You promise an orphan that they can have a home with you. BUT, what you don't take into account is the fact that to make that promise come true, you first must convince 100 other people that this orphan belongs with you.

Suddenly, it's not so easy to keep a single promise. Does that make you a person who's word is not to be trusted? Or does that just make you a person who is optimistic about the outcome?

Govt's make promises all the time. Most of those promises never reach fulfillment because the one's making the promise did not stop to think about WHO they had to convince that 'this is the right way to go" or 'this is the right thing to do'.

I don't think it makes them less trustworthy, just a bit too optimistic about thier powers of persuasion. Granted, there are some promises made that should never be made because they are just too 'out there' to ever accomplish; but all in all, I still have faith in the government and that they truly do not mean to be so....untrustworthy.

_____________________________

"And there I was, minding my own business, when all of a sudden, two asshats fell from the sky"

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 12

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 3:06:08 PM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

Well IMHO the UK has got itself into a right old mess trying to honour the 1950's convention on whatsit, just cant think , that guaranteed the rights of those seeking asylum.
The 1950 situation was a world away from what is happenening today. My point is that even "honourable" behaviour can produce disastrous outcomes.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 13

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 3:30:52 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
.....i have ben thinking about international treaties, ie the Geneva Convention, Nuclear non-proliferation, to name but two. Is it fair and/or reasonable to expect governments to treat them as promises in the same way as individuals make promises or not?
We know we can respect a 'man of his word'.....should we respect governments whose word can't be trusted?

philo,
No unless you can stop time.

A treaty/contract is made because both parties see value in it at that moment in time. The passage of time determines how well both parties predicted the future. Most often something about the future wasn't accurately predicted or some aspect wasn't even considered. After WWI the use of 'mustard gas' was banned by treaty, nuclear weapons weren't for obvious reasons. When the nuclear test ban was signed, computers served the purpose and were cheaper than lighting those big firecrackers.

Most of the time when a treaty impasse occurs reconciliation or renegotiation is handled by different people than originally involved in the process. Those individuals may have a different definition of key words contained in the treaty. If "is" can be a contentious word imagine how easy it would be to make the most iron clad treaty words similarly arbitrary?

It is not the same as personal ethics. Although interpretations of a 'Will' is a similar exercise of semantics; when both people are alive who made the agreement working things out can be accomplished. When emotions come into play, it has the same effect as money does in the case of a Will, but other than that personal ethics are easy to determine.

I judge a person's ethics by their ability to amend treaties/contracts that were based upon false assumptions and unconsidered events. If everything goes as planned, ethics aren't important. It is when, due to no fault of either party, circumstances change that you hope your contractually partner is ethical. Another method between people is their willingness and frequency of using the phase, "I was wrong." When in addressing a matter of fact there is reticence to admit error with acknowledge it with a simple "whoops" you can be sure that down the road you won't be able to rely on ethics. Actually you can - you can rely on the fact that they don't have any.

People can work out "intent" in the face of reality.

Countries don't have that luxury. If either side of an agreed treaty has an unfair advantage or disadvantage most of the time, some faction within one or both of the countries will exploit it. As in the case of the US, internal factions have a vested interest in having treaties fail, or come out unfairly to advance their particular political agenda. Not so simple, but foolish to deny, are the hidden agenda parts of the treaty given by the politicians to their campaign contributors. When power has the potential of changing hands, treaties are a great tool to effect that change either by breaking them or exploiting them.

In a personal gain political world, 'government ethics' takes the same form of mutual exclusivity as 'military intelligence'

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 14

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 5:02:37 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Fair enough...so long as the US also doesn't mind giving up access to markets that it wouldn't have but for its treaty obligations........
i think that the USA could survive relatively comfortably with an isolationist policy, although not quite as comfortable as it is now......

DEAL!

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 15

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 5:06:06 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Fair enough...so long as the US also doesn't mind giving up access to markets that it wouldn't have but for its treaty obligations........
i think that the USA could survive relatively comfortably with an isolationist policy, although not quite as comfortable as it is now......

DEAL!

LOL......now all we need to do is become our respective countries representatives and sign the treaty.....

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 16

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/6/2007 6:56:23 PM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Unless a government is a true servant of the people, they can never be trusted. Power for government should be at the local level, so if someone in charge makes a huge mistake, I can walk next door and smack them in the mouth (metaphor).

Orion

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 17

RE: personal ethics v government ethics - 6/7/2007 8:06:43 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......actually i was hoping for a discussion to delineate in what ways such agreements differ. However, morality and ethics are often simplistic...clearly there is a gray area where such ideas impinge upon reality......but do you really believe that personal virtues such as honesty have absolutely no relation to governence?

My cynical take is that I believe that treaties generally have as much to do with honesty and morality as do sales contracts from used car dealers.

Personal virtues would in my book, include the virtue of not seeking power over others to the extent of wanting to govern them.

I believe that individuals can develop personal integrity, ala Viktor Frankl's observations and theories, but the process of governing seems to be the antithesis of such integrity... and dressing it up with labels like 'public service', 'leadership', and so forth are just so many sausage casings. (Nods to Otto vB)

Just my .02

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 18

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> personal ethics v government ethics

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.313