Personal Development

» pradocg - What about nation-states?

In response to What about nation-states? posted by BrianTubbs:

The trouble with nation-states is that we have to remember the distinction between individuals acting as agents and acting in their own right. Nation-states can neither lie nor deceive, of course. The question is, when their agents lie, do they do so only as agents, or do they also bear the responsibility for the lie in their own right. I'd say that they lie only as agents, except perhaps in cases where tyrants or lunatics so identify with power that they are no longer agents but acting in their own right. The next point I'd make is that for lying to be wrong, it seems two conditions have to be met: first, the person lying must intend to deceive for gain of some sort; second, those lied to must suffer some negative consequence of the deception--or at least may be expected to.

-- posted by pradocg

» pink101 - Framing

In response to What about nation-states? posted by BrianTubbs:
..
Theater seems to have become the course de rigeur for this administration.
.
The genius of men like Carl Rove is found in his understanding of the importance of drama in the lives of the American public. Anyone should have been able to figure it out. So, there's really not a lot of genius involved--it's more the gullibility of the electorate--that mass of people who are entranced by the framing as it is put on the stage. Television has set us up as members of an audience rather than responsible participants in a democracy.
.
Your questions are perfect examples. "What about if the gain is for society or the country? Is it morally acceptable for a US President to lie in order to protect national security?" The mere fact. that you lay the question on the table for consideration sets the stage. Now we are supposed to discuss the morality of the issue rather than the deception involved. Who was being lied to regarding the WMDs? Was Saddam Husein being lied to? No. It was the American people--the electorate--the mass of society. It's all theater.
.
Turning the issue into an academic test fools us into ignoring the fact that the American people were fooled by the lies of a president. I wonder how it feels to have your loved one come home dead or suffering with PTS Syndrome--or worse as a consequence of the lies?
.
So, can we continue as though the lying is academic?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Framing

In response to Framing posted by pink101:

Pink, I'm not framing anything here in order to let Bush off the hook. I wasn't even thinking of President Bush to be honest with you. Believe it or not, when it comes to politics, I'm more interested in history than current events. My mind gravitates more quickly to Presidents of our past than it does to Mr. Bush. So...my scenarios were more along the lines of Eisenhower and the U-2 or JFK and Cuba or, even further back, McKinley and the USS Maine.

» Brian Tubbs - General Washington was wrong then

In response to What about nation-states? posted by pradocg:

In the American Revolution, General Washington was a brilliant spymaster - developing and cultivating an impressive network of spies and agents to thwart the British.

In particular, in the lead-up to Yorktown, he deliberately planted evidence to deceive Gen. Clinton of the British into thinking that he (GW) was about to attack New York. Then, he (GW) quickly marched his army down South to link up with the French and Gen. Nathanael Greene to box in Cornwallis at Yorktown. The deception was elaborate (spies, misinformation, demonstrations from a skeleton American force left outside New York, etc, etc.) And the deception was successful. Clinton didn't know what was happening - until it was too late.

Based on YOUR standard of judging lying to be wrong....

...for lying to be wrong, it seems two conditions have to be met: first, the person lying must intend to deceive for gain of some sort; second, those lied to must suffer some negative consequence of the deception--or at least may be expected to.

Washington lied for gain (victory in the American Revolution) and there were negative consequences to those he deceived (specifically, they lost).

So...General Washington was a liar and in the wrong. Correct?

***Obviously, I don't see GW this way. I consider him a great hero. But...I'm curious how you can let GW off the hook given the standards you've laid out.

» pradocg - General Washington was wrong then

In response to General Washington was wrong then posted by BrianTubbs:

Clearly I should have been more explicit; I thought the point clear from the context. What I meant was that the individual lying had to intend to deceive and to be doing it for PERSONAL gain. GW wasn't doing that, except in some extended sense.

-- posted by pradocg

» Brian Tubbs - General Washington was wrong then

In response to General Washington was wrong then posted by pradocg:

I understand the context, but I am pressing you on that "extended sense." Washington believed in the United States of America, which was only a nation on paper during the Revolutionary War. He was personally committed to a cause he deemed higher than himself, but it was still his personal commitment we're talking about here.

It seems that what you're alluding to is that a person can lie, cheat, steal, etc. - and it be okay - so long as they are acting as the agent of a nation-state and doing so for the good of that nation-state. I don't believe that is your position per se, but I am curious to hear you elaborate on it.

And for the record, I respect your writings and consider this topic (ethics in general and honesty in particular) to be of vital importance to our society. So, I'm not trying to give you a hard time here. I am truly interested in your position.

» pradocg - General Washington was wrong then

In response to General Washington was wrong then posted by BrianTubbs:

Okay; here's the thing: It's a question of agency and what I'll call "ethical realm." Washington, as an agent for a nascent nation, is operating in one of two ethical realms: first, if his belief in the wrongness of lying is religious, then it pretty much has to be universal. That is, if it's God that proscribes lying, then even as an agent he shouldn't lie. On the other hand, if the ethical realm is secular, then he's an agent of a (nascent) nation acting among agents of other nations and pretty much anything goes as there is no covenant among nations about lying. By the way, it doesn't follow that in a secular society there is no covenant about lying because if that were the case we'd be in Hobbes' state of nature and it'd be everyone for himself for a life that would be "nasty, brutish, and short." What introduction of nations does is separate out societies and in effect establishes a state of nature among nations--though it could be among smaller groups such as tribes.

-- posted by pradocg

» pink101 - Nations & Individuals

In response to General Washington was wrong then posted by pradocg:
.
You are opening an intriguing area not only regarding relationships within groups but, also, in group to group.
.
The idea that there can be "a state of nature among nations" and "smaller groups such as tribes" seems like a course of study. Can you expand on it in the context of your discussion with Brian--or it that too complex?
.
It doesn't seem like we have a very good grasp on what it means to live in a national society.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Nations & Individuals

In response to Nations & Individuals posted by pink101:
.
I guess I'm wondering if we are involved in questioning if nations are here to stay or not.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - GW

In response to General Washington was wrong then posted by pradocg:

Washington, as an agent for a nascent nation, is operating in one of two ethical realms: first, if his belief in the wrongness of lying is religious, then it pretty much has to be universal. That is, if it's God that proscribes lying, then even as an agent he shouldn't lie.

Washington's religious beliefs are of course the subject of an ongoing, intense debate. But, I think one can say rather safely that his personal ethics were the result of a number of influences - from Anglicanism to Freemasonry to history. He was in many ways the quintessential Stoic. This is Joseph Ellis' position in His Excellency. So, I would imagine that ethics played a HUGE role in his life. Forget "imagine." Anyone who knows anything about GW knows that ethics played a huge role in his life. He cared very much about his character and reputation. And I'm confident he probably wrestled with some of the issues we're talking about here - which is why I am using him as an example.