3 ms·

so in conclusion they all lacked morals. or just being slightly less worse is enough for your ethics?

• vinceguidry 13y ago
  That's a very interesting philosophical question, how to judge historical figures accurately in terms of morality/ethics. My own position on the matter is that standards tend to evolve over time, so when seeking to evaluate someone, you need to take that into account. If you just go by the Golden Rule standard of ethics, W. A. Clark was far more worthy than many of his rivals of his success. Politics, by its very nature, introduces a great number of potential moral pitfalls and there aren't always good and effective approaches to evading them.
  • gcb1 13y ago
    not that complex. your approach to the problems is wrong. you start with the assumption that current politics belongs to the moral group, when it may very well be outside. so by that bad definition you think it is a complex problem. they got by with the times. got great fortune, brought great misery. like any other "great name". so maybe the concept of great name always having to befit an hero is what is wrong. humans must abandon the hero myth and the desires for immeasurable riches to be able to stand ground on the moral field. or you could keep the original paradigm and keep debating how to fit your data in the groups forever.
  • fleitz 13y ago
    The world isn't an ethical/moral dilemma, stuff happens and people rationalize it as to not disturb their worldview. If you can convince most people that your reasons about why stuff happened are valid then you win. It's like Remembrance Day, no one died for all the horrible shit that happened, only the good stuff.