7 ms·
I don't understand or accept it. While your point about unintended financial consequences is very valid, I find this the lowest threshold of decision making.
by furyg3 13y ago
I don't understand or accept it. While your point about unintended financial consequences is very valid, I find this the lowest threshold of decision making.
I don't steal staplers at work, not because I might get caught, or because everybody does it, or because it may adversely affect my company, or due to some other unforeseen consequence. I do it because I've thought a lot about stealing and have concluded that it's wrong to do so.
The US has overwhelming military force (a house full of staplers). The US and/or France could have easily taken the decision to not deliver military satellites to the UAE (or to use political means to block it).
- mythealias 13y agoWake me up when US decides to sell it military tech for security and not money. I agree that financial consequences might not be a priority in decision making, but at the end of the day US (or rather the corporations, which can no longer be attributed to just US) are interested in money. I don't think UAE will stop buying stuff just because it is know to be tainted, but they get upper hand in bargaining the price. Also I don't understand your analogy to staplers fully. If US is a house of staplers and UAE (or any other nation) is not an employee there then the only reason they are not stealing is because they lack the skill. On an individual level it is relatively easier to make decisions regarding moral issues like stealing but that doesn't work for a group.
- furyg3 13y agoMy analogy is that the US shouldn't spy on it's parters because it is wrong and not because they may or may not get caught.
- wil421 13y agoWhat do you think spy agencies do? They spy on each other, I believe the part that is wrong is when they spy on innocent citizens. But intercepting military communications is what they do period. Right or wrong its their job, we may not agree with it but its what they are put there to do.
- furyg3 13y agoI'm a bit weary of this statement. Just because we created a institution who's job it is to secretly break laws abroad, does not mean that we don't have the right to say "hey, maybe institutionalizing criminal activity abroad was a bad move". I argue it was. I think that saying that we have these unalienable rights which God has given to all humans, creating a system of democracy around agreeing on them and settling disputes, and then saying "oh, but these rules only apply to how we treat ourselves" is crazy. If we've decided spying on our own citizens is bad, we should not do it to others. We would (and do) get upset if the government secretly and without cause taps a company's server. We have a right to be upset if China sells us routers which are bugged. We all agree that those are bad things. Yet we do them to others. That's amoral.
- bennyg 13y agoMeant to up vote you but blurry, just-put-contacts-in eyes clicked the down arrow.
- aethr 13y agoPolitical manoeuvring between states isn't a game that you can just choose not to play. Gathering intelligence about what the other players are doing, or intend to do, is an absolutely necessary part of the whole gambit. If the US and others didn't do this, they would be playing blind against better informed opponents. Each country is a team, competing on the political, military and economic fronts. Spying on your own citizens is wrong because they are supposed to be teammates, not adversaries. When this is done to consolidate power among those who are meant to be working in our best interests, we see that as an abuse of power and a subversion of the mechanisms of democracy in our own state. It's bad for the long term health of the political system of any democratic nation. Spying on your opponents is a completely different issue, as typically you are working in your team's best interests. Like many issues in life, it's complicated, and taking a hard line moral stance on the issue just isn't practical. I upvoted you because I think you raise an important question, but I'm also trying to point out that spying at home and abroad can't necessarily be evaluated on the same criteria. There are practical reasons to stop a government from spying on its own citizens, it isn't necessarily a moral argument.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gress 13y agoIf it's in the best interests of its citizens (and it's partners are doing it too) is it really wrong, or just not the way you wish the world worked?
- brudgers 13y agoIndividuals have moral agency. Corporate bodies such as governments do not. It is a category mistake to attribute agency to them. Governments are neither moral nor immoral. They are amoral. Defense satellites are no more staplers than monads are Scottish ballads. Defense satellites do not organize documents. They are tools to facilitate the use of violence. The UAE military establishment is following the same rationales as the US's - a bigger stick better insures achieving diplomatic objectives.
- PavlovsCat 13y agoGroups are made up of individuals. Those individuals are responsible for their actions, and hiding behind a group is in my opinion an immoral act. A group made up of individuals acting immorally in that way, is itself immoral. QED, or something.
- DigitalTurk 13y agoYou state your opinion as facts, but forget to give an argument. The least you could do is provide a reference. Prima facie, I don't find your view plausible at all.
- XorNot 13y agoHow can an entity which consists of between dozens to hundreds of thousands of people, each of whom has limited agency over the aggregate actions of that entity, and can be replaced at any time while fulfilling the same function (on paper) be remotely capable of demonstrating human-like moral agency?
- pvarangot 13y agoStates have not-human-like moral codes: agree Amoral states: don't agree I believe each group of people have their own social and moral codes that guide their behavior. I don't believe its something easy to understand, determine or represent.
- DigitalTurk 13y ago
- gbog 13y agoI may not steal staplers, and would certainly not pee in my neighbour's letter box except if really drunk, but, if I were in the position of Israel, which is a very unconfortable position, a war in fact, I would certainly work hard to find a way to listen to my hostile neighbours.
- tn13 13y agoLaws of morality do not apply to states. India has suffered a lot because it failed to understand this basic fact. I dont think there is any moral argument against what government is doing. The only argument is that American government is not strong enough to go ahead with these kinds schemes any more.