Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Bush and Ethics watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    can you not use the term 'sacrifice' or that figure since they are highly inaccurate.
    Ok then he went to war knowing that some innorcent people would die that is inevitable and however many people died they did. I just think that controlled research into stem cells using feotuses is no worse than going to war and inadvertantly killing X number of people. Yet Bush opposes the loss of these feotuses but accepts that some Iraquis much die for the "greater good" I just don't understand it. To me it seems the same as apposing abortion on the grounds that life is sacred but supporting the death penalty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    +An economic policy affects people, so it is has to be concerned with morality.
    you also say "A decision conerning morality, that is to say, a decision concerning right and wrong."

    firstly, you say that effecting people is equal to morality. i entirely disagree. why does people necessarily imply morality. bush could be entirely exempt from the concept of 'moral' for all we know and still make value judgements.

    secondly, you define morality as concepts of good or bad, or shall we say the 'just vs evil'. this being a gauge of the goodness in the human character. that decision arising from our sense or right and wrong in our conscience. this is the dictionary definition of moral.

    thus, how does you previous assertion that he would take his decision based on its "implications for people's welfare"(and this being the pillar on which your argument is based) agree with the notion that morality as defined above, is exempt from such a basis and rather depends WHOLLY on our sense of doing the just thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Ok then he went to war knowing that some innorcent people would die that is inevitable and however many people died they did. I just think that controlled research into stem cells using feotuses is no worse than going to war and inadvertantly killing X number of people. Yet Bush opposes the loss of these feotuses but accepts that some Iraquis much die for the "greater good" I just don't understand it. To me it seems the same as apposing abortion on the grounds that life is sacred but supporting the death penalty.
    can you perhaps read my explanation of this and then comment on it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=vienna95]you also say "A decision conerning morality, that is to say, a decision concerning right and wrong."

    firstly, you say that effecting people is equal to morality. i entirely disagree. why does people necessarily imply morality. bush could be entirely exempt from the concept of 'moral' for all we know and still make value judgements.

    Come on, let's be honest here. I didn't think you'd go for the 'oh well nothing is certain' argument, we can all use that to wriggle our way out of a situation, but if we did that there'd be no point in debating in the first place, as on could always cop out. Let's face it, there is a general consensus that morality is concerned with humans.

    Again be realistic, are you really suggesting bush (a born again christian) is not aware of the existence of rightness and wrongness?

    secondly, you define morality as concepts of good or bad, or shall we say the 'just vs evil'. this being a gauge of the goodness in the human character. that decision arising from our sense or right and wrong in our conscience. this is the dictionary definition of moral.

    I don't see how this changes anything.

    [B]thus, how does you previous assertion that he would take his decision based on its "implications for people's welfare"(and this being the pillar on which your argument is based)

    You've quoted me out of context. I said economic policy affects people which makes it moral and I said bush is aware of this which makes his decision one concerned with morality, I never said he would make a policy based on the implications for people's welfare, merely that he would be aware that the policy DID affect people's welfare.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    can you perhaps read my explanation of this and then comment on it?
    I read the one you made on the first page if that is what you mean. I just don't agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Lepr]
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you also say "A decision conerning morality, that is to say, a decision concerning right and wrong."

    firstly, you say that effecting people is equal to morality. i entirely disagree. why does people necessarily imply morality. bush could be entirely exempt from the concept of 'moral' for all we know and still make value judgements.

    Come on, let's be honest here. I didn't think you'd go for the 'oh well nothing is certain' argument, we can all use that to wriggle our way out of a situation, but if we did that there'd be no point in debating in the first place, as on could always cop out. Let's face it, there is a general consensus that morality is concerned with humans.
    yes, morality is concerned with humans but thats not what i said. you saying that because his interest is humans it is thus morality. the no moral judgements point is one of logic so i can reduce yours and show it to be illogical. that i have done. i dont pass it off as realistic just as you shouldnt pass off unrealistic arguments as slipping out of a debate.

    Again be realistic, are you really suggesting bush (a born again christian) is not aware of the existence of rightness and wrongness?
    no. im saying that whether he does or not is irrelevant to my point, that economic policy decisions are not inherently moral.

    secondly, you define morality as concepts of good or bad, or shall we say the 'just vs evil'. this being a gauge of the goodness in the human character. that decision arising from our sense or right and wrong in our conscience. this is the dictionary definition of moral.

    I don't see how this changes anything.
    its merely a premise on to which im forming an argument, thats how it works.

    [B]thus, how does you previous assertion that he would take his decision based on its "implications for people's welfare"(and this being the pillar on which your argument is based)

    You've quoted me out of context. I said economic policy affects people which makes it moral
    sorry? out of context? you define the context right here! 'it effects peoples welfare thus moral'. from our definition of moral, how on earth does that occur!!?

    and I said bush is aware of this which makes his decision one concerned with morality, I never said he would make a policy based on the implications for people's welfare, merely that he would be aware of that.

    whats this then?

    George bush knows that this policy has implications for people's welfare.
    Therefore George bush is making a moral decision
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I read the one you made on the first page if that is what you mean. I just don't agree.
    i was referring to this:

    Quote:
    The value he puts on life so regularly contradictory. He values is very highly so thinks that abortion is wrong, and yet will go to war and not let stem cell development to help save lives of those alive. He puts a higher price on the life of an embryo than of an 18 year old solider.

    me:
    not at all. he recognises that the human race has, as a goal, to perpetuate itself and its existence. this is acheived by making the best world we can for the new life that will exist in its society. as ive already reiterated, it is highly consistent to see the need for good to conquer evil and provide a future for our children and that the very fabrics of life be protected in order to protect our species. that is his moral judgement, not one of simplistic reductions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    not at all. he recognises that the human race has, as a goal, to perpetuate itself and its existence. this is acheived by making the best world we can for the new life that will exist in its society. as ive already reiterated, it is highly consistent to see the need for good to conquer evil and provide a future for our children and that the very fabrics of life be protected in order to protect our species. that is his moral judgement, not one of simplistic reductions.
    If he wanted the best for the next generation he would support anything that would aid the fight against disease. Stem Cell Research would do this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    If he wanted the best for the next generation he would support anything that would aid the fight against disease. Stem Cell Research would do this.
    it may well do so, but he believes that as a human he has no right to alter natures wish and fabric. to do so would be ultimately more damaging to the future of our society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    yes, morality is concerned with humans but thats not what i said. you saying that because his interest is humans it is thus morality.

    'you say that effecting people is equal to morality. i entirely disagree.' You know full well I never said that. You have to stop putting words in my mouth. I said any decision which affects the welfare of someone has to concern rightness and wrongness. Unless of course, you think making someone better or worse off is outside morality.

    As for the second sentence of this paragraph, it is incomprehensible.


    the no moral judgements point is one of logic so i can reduce yours and show it to be illogical. that i have done.

    My argument is based on the premise that making a person better or worse off has to be concerned with morality, judgement doesn't go into it as far as you would suggest.



    i dont pass it off as realistic just as you shouldnt pass off unrealistic arguments as slipping out of a debate.

    I didn't pass off your unrealistic arguments as slipping out of debate, I said they were a poor cop out.



    no. im saying that whether he does or not is irrelevant to my point, that economic policy decisions are not inherently moral.

    Well here's a little point of contention. Are you suggesting then that, something that makes someone worse off is not concerned with rightness and wrongness, and that something that makes someone better off is not concerned with rightness and wrongness?


    its merely a premise on to which im forming an argument, thats how it works.

    It's a fallacious premise that's not correctly connected to my argument



    Whats this then?

    George bush knows that this policy has implications for people's welfare.
    Therefore George bush is making a moral decision
    Are you suggesting that George bush is not aware that affecting people's welfare concerns the notions of rightness and wrongness?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    Are you suggesting that George bush is not aware that affecting people's welfare concerns the notions of rightness and wrongness?
    no, im suggesting if he makes a decision based on solely whether its the 'just thing', it is a moral decision. if he takes a decision that include material and political concerns, a raise in GDP per head, how people will view America, unemployment etc. it is not moral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it may well do so, but he believes that as a human he has no right to alter natures wish and fabric. to do so would be ultimately more damaging to the future of our society.
    'nature's wish and fabric', that seems like an awfully romantic concept. I wonder if he was concerned with 'nature's wish and fabric' when it came to not signing the kyoto agreement.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    since when has Bush made abortion illegal?
    Probably referring to this http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

    But it didn't succeed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no, im suggesting if he makes a decision based on solely whether its the 'just thing', it is a moral decision. if he takes a decision that include material and political concerns, a raise in GDP per head, how people will view America, unemployment etc. it is not moral.
    I never said he would make a decision based 'solely' on whether he thought it was just or not. Rather, I said he was aware that economic policy concerned morality. You're confusing me saying that bush understands that the concepts of rightness with wrongness exist with actually implementing his conscious to the fullest extent. He doesn't have to completely listen to his conscience for his decision to be concerned with morality. In fact, not listening to your conscience is still a response that concerns morality.

    I see what you're getting at when you talk about material and political concerns, but these still have implications for people's welfare. But let's just assume they don't, for argument's sake. An issue does not have to be fully concerned with moraity to concern morality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Probably referring to this http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

    But it didn't succeed.
    opposing late-term abortions is not opposing abortion. i hold a similar opinion as do many women i know.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    opposing late-term abortions is not opposing abortion. i hold a similar opinion as do many women i know.
    Yes but a major factor in the morality argument is why should your moral opinion on the matter stop anyone alse doing it. It does not harm anyone else in the same way war does. Why do you hold a better opinion to judge than the mother of the baby herself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    I never said he would make a decision based 'solely' on whether he thought it was just or not. Rather, I said he was aware that economic policy concerned morality. You're confusing me saying that bush understands that the concepts of rightness with wrongness exist with actually implementing his conscious to the fullest extent. He doesn't have to completely listen to his conscience for his decision to be concerned with morality. In fact, not listening to your conscience is still a response that concerns morality.
    but its not a decision taken on moral terms or exclusively on moral considerations which is the only reasonable pretext to a moral decision.


    I see what you're getting at when you talk about material and political concerns, but these still have implications for people's welfare. .
    PEOPLES WELFARE DOES NOT EQUAL MORALITY BY DEFAULT.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it may well do so, but he believes that as a human he has no right to alter natures wish and fabric. to do so would be ultimately more damaging to the future of our society.
    Then he should oppose all the medical advances that have ever been made. It just doesn't work I don't think a clear line can be drawn between what is natural and what is unatural.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    but its not a decision taken on moral terms or exclusively on moral considerations which is the only reasonable pretext to a moral decision.

    I disagree. If there are, in part, moral considerations then it is fair to say that a decision concerns morality. Even if moral issues are recognized but overlooked, this is still a decision concerning morality. We could only say he wasn't making a moral decision if he wasn't aware that rightness and wrongness were involved,.




    PEOPLES WELFARE DOES NOT EQUAL MORALITY BY DEFAULT.
    I've never said equal, I've said concern. Are you suggesting that when someone gets worse or better off, there is no connection between this and the concepts of rightness and wrongness?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    sacrifice?

    and how? his morality in his capacity as a leader is that good should prevail and that we should act to preserve or create good over evil. this is consistent in both cases.
    Sacrifice: He took a decision knowing, that as a direct result of this decision thousands of people would be killed - American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, Iraqi soldiers. He thought that was alright, since in the long term it would be beneficial, it was for the greater good. Hence, I think it is fair to say he sacrificed thousands of people.

    About his morality: That good should prevail and that we should act to preserve or create good over evil is pretty self-evident for every person who has the ambition to act morally.
    However, the question is: What is good, what is evil, and how can we achieve good.

    The answers to that is what you call a moral system. And what I am criticising here is Bush's moral system.

    You're beside the point here.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.