Personal Development

» Brian Tubbs - Lines of Distinction

Dr. Prado,

It may be that I'm just not "getting it," and that's fine. I assure you, though, I am TRYING to "come to grips" with what you're saying.

On a personal level, I'm pretty sure I understand what lying is all about - and what the standard(s) should be. For my own part, I believe God decides right from wrong - and is the ultimate Moral Law-Giver. I believe Pink differs with me on that, and perhaps you do as well. Reflecting back on your article "The Basis of Rightness," I believe the only sure basis of rightness is God. Anything else is a slippery foundation.

But I digress...The point is I understand pretty well, I think, what constitues "false witness" and "lying" for individuals. And I agree with you that there are ethical responsibilities and consequences associated with our personal relationships and the decisions we make.

Where the lines get a little less clear is with nation-states - at least for me.

If the government urges one of its agents to lie, cheat, steal, be unfaithful to his or her spouse, etc. in order to get secrets from another agent, organization, or group - information that will HELP the government, what then? What are the ethical responsibilities that rest with that individual?

Now, I can put together a biblically based case, I believe, where there would be some lines of distinction. But since I'm probably the only conservative, fundamental, Bible-believing Christian in this conversation....

I'm looking for a consensus type standard of morality that can be reasonably applied across the board - something that would lay out lines of distinction (as appropriate) in terms of nation-state morality and individual morality.

If I'm not articulating myself correctly, I apologize.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Bush

In response to Just Let Things Ride? posted by pink101:

Pink, I don't think we should get into evaluating the policies of the Bush administration, but I think the issue of honesty is appropriate here.

In my view, I think George W. Bush genuinely believed that:

a) Saddam Hussein represented a clear and present danger to the interests (if not the security) of the United States

b) Saddam Hussein, at the least, had plans to pursue development of weapons of mass destruction - and, at worst, was already developing and stockpiling WMD

c) Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorist organizations, including PERHAPS Al Quaida

d) Terrorist organizations, including Al Quaida, should not be allowed to get their hands on WMD technology and weaponry

e) Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted in his relationships with these terrorist groups - and more than likely would (or is already) share information with them about WMD

f) Saddam Hussein is a butcher and a man guilty of hideous and evil human rights violations in Iraq

g) Saddam Hussein had been uncooperative with the UN and the international community in general

Now whether you AGREE with Bush or not, I think Bush truly and honestly BELIEVED all the above things about Saddam Hussein - and he acted accordingly.

Now, note, this does NOT represent my complete position on George W. Bush - so take a chill pill :-) before you start attacking me. I'm simply laying out as best I can in the limited time I have what I believe were the GENUINE and SINCERE positions of George W. Bush and company prior to their decision to invade Iraq.

Did they think the policy through? Was the intel correct? Did they plan for the post-war occupation? Did they commit enough troops? Were there mistakes made? All of those questions are for a DIFFERENT debate and a DIFFERENT thread.

The issue here is Bush's honesty. Was Bush lying or did he genuinely believe the things he said about Saddam? Were the reasons he provided for the invasion true to the best of his knowledge and intentions?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Bush

In response to Bush posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"Now, note, this does NOT represent my complete position on George W. Bush - so take a chill pill :-) before you start attacking me."
.
Have I ever attacked you? I don't think so.
.
In another thread, I made a statement about what's going on in Iraq. I wrote that I couldn't believe that the Bush Administration could make such an outrageous miscalculation in their attack on and occupation of Iraq. They have every resource available to them and I'm positive you will agree on that. Every resource means that they have the most sophisticated computer software programs availabe that you can imagine and I mean that to the extreme. There can be no doubt whatsoever that they knew exactly what was unfolding in Iraq and how that was effecting the stability over there.
.
The software programs they have available to them will most obviously allow them to input data on an hourly basis as to what is happening in that theater of war they have built. They know the scenario and they know the players. Or are there people out there who believe we're still back there in the middle of the twentieth century? When we can figure out the design of an automobile or an airship to such finesse using a computer for the answers, we sure can figure out what will take place on the broadest base of the world when we perform as we have in the Middle East.
.
IN OTHER WORDS, the Bush Administration knew exactly what would happen as a result of this attack and subsequent occupation. Things are going exactly according to plans. The only fly in the ointment at all was this last election. For some reason, they didn't think the American public would not go along with their B.S.. And, it was B.S.. You have been hornswoggled, brother, and that is the truth. Not only you; but, hundreds of millions of people have been conned into believing that Bush is kinda short on brains--no way hosea. He is one smart hombre and he knows exactly what he is doing.
.
Now, that said, there is an argument can be made that in the long run, the Neo-conservative mindset is the correct one to hold. The idea that the Levitan and the Oriental have been building for a couple of thousand years to come to this place where the future of the world will be decided--that we'll either be under Oritental rule or we will remain under Western rule. There are those people who truly believe that the best interests of the future of humanity will be served by an all out world war so that all the opposition to Western ideologies can be eradicated from the face of the earth. I think they are called Neo-Cons.
.
The situation in Iraq is exactly according to plan.
.
Maybe not. Time will tell.
.
The proportions of the lies being told the American people are humungous.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Hornswaggled?

In response to Bush posted by pink101:

I've never heard that term before. I like it, though. I may have to use it a sermon. :-)

Well, returning to the theme here, if Bush lied (and you believe he told some big ones), then would these lies be ethically justified IF he were right about the long-term interests of the US?

Could not I borrow from Dr. Prado and say that Bush is lying as an agent of the US government?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Hornswaggled?

In response to Hornswaggled? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
've never heard that term before. I like it, though. I may have to use it a sermon
.
Stick around and you'll learn all sorts of useless things. That one is an old yankeeism.
.
:)
.
If your agent lies to you about what you need to do and if that causes you to lose life and limb, how do you deal with him?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pradocg - Lines of Distinction

In response to Lines of Distinction posted by BrianTubbs:

I'm afraid a number of things are still being run together. First, an individual lies to another, say for personal gain. Second, a president or premier or whatever pursues a government's policy and deceives the representative of another country, say. This is the sort of case where we have to determine the individual's responsibility for deception as opposed to acting as an agent--which is not his/her deception. You bring in something else again, a government forces an individual to lie as part of implementing some policy or scheme. Now it depends on the individual's status: is that person acting as an agent or in his/her own right? None of this is clear-cut before hand; we need specific examples, we need to know what's at stake, and so on, before we can make a judgment. What I don't like about much that has been said here is that it's assumed that simply uttering what is not true is lying for which the person is personally responsible. Maybe, but maybe not.

-- posted by pradocg

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Lines of Distinction

In response to Lines of Distinction posted by pradocg:
.
Or,
.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to decieve."
.
:)
.
Who said that? Was it Sir Walter Scott?
.
I keyed it in to my search engine and got 112,000 links. Many of them mention Rumsfeld and Bush.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Seems Inexplicable

In response to Lines of Distinction posted by pradocg:
.
This entire issue seems inexplicable as far as coming to a final conclusion is concerned.
.
We seem to be trying to mix religious with human values and that's sort of a hydrophobic thing--mixing oil and water--it doesn't work. You don't have to reason religious values out--they come to you ready made out of antiquity--written down--and cannot be questioned. Whereas, human values can be considered using moral standards. Two completely different views on right and wrong, good and evil--one is absolute and the other is relevant to practical living.
.
It's why we live in a secular society.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» wensdei - Religious vs. Human Values

In response to Seems Inexplicable posted by pink101:

After reading the various discussions regarding this article, I would have to agree with pink101: "This entire issue seems inexplicable as far as coming to a final conclusion is concerned"

But I don't believe that there should be a distinction between religious values and human values. It's crazy because who else will be there to imbibe and live these religious values (such as honesty, integrity, love of neighbor, etc.) but humans? Religious values should not be regarded as outdated or antiquated. These were institutionalized, true, thru the establishment of churches and religions. However, in whichever religion, the values are the same. And it is important (even moreso now) that people in this "secular society" understand that in order to live in harmony, such values are always upheld. People should not think that just because they are not affiliated with any specific sect or religion, they are not required to follow a set of moral rules. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the world today is very difficult to live in. This separation of church and state has been taken to a superficial level by some people. Whether a person goes to church or not, as a human being, he/she is expected to live the values of honesty, integrity, respect, love, compassion, etc., even if these are not reciprocated.

I might be looking at this on a more personal level rather than the bigger national-supernational picture that this discussion has gone to. But I've always believed that it is also important to look at things simply and remember the basic truths that we've been taught to be able to make the world a better place.

Doc's article was a simple and basic illustration of the status of honesty in the world today.

As for the further discussions regarding spies, lying as war strategies, I guess these are extraordinary situations (no matter how prevalent) where the concept of right and wrong, good and evil are relative based on which side you're on. That's where the gray area is (not religious values vs. human values). In the first place, had all human beings been living in harmony, there would have been no wars, invasions, terrorist acts, weapons of mass destruction, etc. that would require spies, strategic lying for war tactics, frame-ups, etc.

-- posted by wensdei

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» spiritalk - Religious vs. Human Values

In response to Religious vs. Human Values posted by wensdei:

Before we ever find ourselves in a church building, following a specific religion (even if originally imposed by parents or guardians) we have something that tells us these issues of honesty, ethics, morals, etc. This something is our own individual spirituality. It is alive and well developed in each of us.

Yes, it can be ignored as a small part of our inner voice. And yes, we can justify our behaviour without using these standards of honesty, etc.

There is natural law that kicks in..whether we know it, know about it, or even consider it...and those laws set a tone in our lives. The consequences are seen in our individual lives when we ignore that we are personally responsible for ourselves and no one else can do this for us.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds