4 ms·
It’s because the topic is how you set norms and ethics. If your ethics are relativistic and entirely dependent on how ethical or unethical your peers are, I’d s
by jplayer01 8y ago
It’s because the topic is how you set norms and ethics. If your ethics are relativistic and entirely dependent on how ethical or unethical your peers are, I’d suggest that your ethics aren’t ethics and more like an opportunistic world view devoid of such.
- portpecos 8y agoDear Ethical USA, You are the largest exporter of arms in the world, in fact, you sold more than half a trillion dollars worth of arms since the 1950s. Your previous Progressive Presidency sold $115 Billion alone to Saudi Barbaria. https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ https://www.reuters.com/article/US-usa-saudi-security-idUSKC... Maybe it’s in your ethical interest to clean your own house first. You started the Military Industrial Complex, you maintained the Military Industrial Complex, and you will continue propping up the Military Industrial Complex, now eat it.
- godelmachine 8y agoI beg to differ with you. It’s obvious you are confused between peers and adversaries. When it comes to national security, the only best ethic is to reciprocate one’s adversaries polities and acts, and prove one is a credible deterrent. India initiated non-violent political movements, but that does not mean Indians should remain mute spectator while its gigantic neighbour who has made it obvious that it wants to be a world economic-military superpower indulges in arms race. Calling such deterrence “opportunistic” and “devoid” is a bit too rich.
- matz1 8y agoEthics is relative. What is your definition of ethics?