Some people are quite good at re-wiring their ethics

[sibelian]

to suit the situation at hand.

Certain right wing factions re-wire to make situations look bad and certain other people re-wire to make situations look good.

What I have observed over the past decade since 9-11 is a colossal re-wiring of the global body politic to make acceptable things that *we ourselves*, not aged ancestors, and on *both sides* would have found unacceptable a mere decade ago.

Either you hold yourself to some kind of moral standard or you don't, there's no happy medium where you get to decide how ethical you want to be in a particular situation depending on how you're emotions are swinging, or whether or not it's too much effort to behave or think properly.

There was an American general of some name or other, I forget who, who said: "If something's worth fighting for it's worth fighting dirty for."

This statement represents the beginning of the end of honorable behaviour. There's really only one thing worth fighting for in the end and that, more or less, is not fighting dirty.

[Odin2005]

1. Give a whole new meaning to the term "situational ethics"!

:puke:

[sibelian]

2. I am disgusted.

Absolutely disgusted.

[CJCRANE]

3. I see two trends, moving in opposite directions, during the last decade.

On the one hand, the Republicans wanted to make America more like the one-party/theocratic/dictatorial regimes of the Middle East.

At the same time (we now know) the people of the Middle East wanted to move more towards the type of liberal democracy that neocon America was leaving behind.

[sibelian]

5. Monolithic political structures based on

hegemonising ideology have a tendency to become fragile. Reality's too big and complex for such systems to cope with.

That's what *I* think.

Of course, it often takes quite a while for the monolithinc nastiness to collapse, but if we've learned anything from this year it's that long-standing political systems that everyone takes for granted are usually not as stable as they look.

I'm a bit worried about the fate of the Middle East. It took generations of patient effort to get the West to a state where freedom of speech and democracy were not only tolerated but respected.

If our institutions can crumble so easily, why not their versions too?

[ixion]

4. "rewiring ethics" is ethical relativism, and means that deep down

you have no ethics, in my opinion.

[sibelian]

6. Yes, that's what I think.

It's entirely possible for isolated individuals to live quite ordinary lives without upset and no real ethical standards at all save that which convinces themselves and those around them that they're acceptable members of their peer group. I know many such individuals. As soon as anything difficult crops up they reveal their true nature.

[customerserviceguy]

7. Is AQ a signer of the Geneva Conventions?

Do they adhere to it's standards?

[sibelian]

8. An excellent question.

But why do you ask?

[customerserviceguy]

12. Because fighting dirty means fighting against the rules

I don't seem to recall any rules that allow civilian aircraft to be taken over to fly into buildings loaded with civilians.

By the way, this answer won't make sense to you if you think 9/11 was an inside job. If that's the case, this is just more of the same, only TPTB have got Obama doing their dirty work.

[sibelian]

14. Oh, look, the subject of the post has changed.

Goodness, that was quick!

[customerserviceguy]

22. Hey, I have to allow for all possibilities here

We have people here who believe it was 100% AQ, with Bushco taking complete advantage of the situation that resulted, and we have those who think that it was all a set up to grab power.

If the latter is the case, then the President's in on it, too. On the other hand, those of us who believe that we fight an enemy whose only rule is 'win', then we have to make sure they don't. No matter what.

[AngkorWot]

9. "not fighting dirty"

What are you getting at?

[sibelian]

10. The phrase is in English, I believe.

[AngkorWot]

11. Are you referring to any specific tactic?

Or are you just sort of rambling randomly?

[sibelian]

15. Oh, I'm sure we could spend many a happy hour rambling together.

But my original post is entirely clear.

[AngkorWot]

17. "my original post"

Your original post was talking about ethics, but here you are playing dumb and dodging the question.

That's not ethical, sibelian.

[sibelian]

21. Doubtless you understand my post better than me.

Explain it to me, by all means, O arbiter of my ethics.

[AngkorWot]

23. I didn't understand it at all, that's why I asked for you to clear it up.

It's just a bunch of blather.

[sibelian]

25. Don't trouble yourself over it.

I'm sure you have more important things to worry about than me and my blather.

[randome]

13. Everyone makes a calculation

...as to what ethics apply to any given situation. If we do NOT do that, then we are robots, not human beings.

[sibelian]

16. No. Backwards, I'm afraid. It's robots that make calculations.

[randome]

18. Good reply.

But 'calculation' is just a synonym for 'thinking' or 're-evaluate'. If the life of someone you loved was at imminent risk and you could save him/her by killing someone, what would you do?

I know what I would do.

My larger point is that not everything fits neatly into either/or scenarios.

I don't condone killing people in other countries but I don't condone them killing innocents, either. Some questions can't be answered, I'm afraid.

[sibelian]

26. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

But your response is thoughtful so...

"But 'calculation' is just a synonym for 'thinking' or 're-evaluate'. If the life of someone you loved was at imminent risk and you could save him/her by killing someone, what would you do?

I know what I would do."

You have taken the step, in your response to me, of deciding on your outcome in a hypothetical scenario before it's taken place - you've already set yourself a standard. That's not re-wiring, that's ethical thinking. If, god forbid, the event you describe then takes place, well, you've had the courage to be honest with yourself beforehand, and if you stick to your guns, you haven't fooled yourself.

You have considered the matter and treated it as an area for prior decision rather than an experience to be muddled through with a stamp of "I did this, so that was the right thing to do." And it's that last bit in inverted commas that I'm objecting to - not ethical standards that differ from my own.

"My larger point is that not everything fits neatly into either/or scenarios. I don't condone killing people in other countries but I don't condone them killing innocents, either. Some questions can't be answered, I'm afraid."

No indeed, there are countless situations where it is extremely difficult to decide what the right thing to do might be. But at least you have an idea that they're grey. The kind of thing I'm objecting to is post-mortem ethics where the most comfortable position is chosen rather than the right one, or the best possible one, and as far as I can see, the post-mortem ethics on the greyest of grey areas in a lot of the last decade's political debates have been invariably a nice, comfortable white or black.

[lunatica]

19. War itself is dishonorable so picking and choosing actions as being

honorable or dishonorable on how to kill the enemy in any war is constant self-wiring.

I find it easier to be against war because aside from war already being dishonorable it foments dishonorable actions.

[sibelian]

24. I agree.

Battlegrounds require the co-operation of extensively re-wired individuals to take place at all. No-one is born to spend their blood on such nonsense.

[Nikia]

20. I think that most people are not as good as they hope to be ethically

In certain situations. They stop acting ethically when they perceive that those around them are not, especially when they meet opposition. They are especially influenced by powerful people who personally hold power over them or who are portrayed as much better than them in every way. I think that low self esteem plays a role, but almost everyone is vulnerable to some extent.

[sibelian]

27. I think your observation about low self esteem

Is *very* apt.

I was fortunate in that I had the opportunity later in life to re-evaluate my whole way of thinking about morality when I stopped being a Christian. It made me face the basis of my Christianity and come up with some very clear conclusions.

It's very difficult to get me to do things that I don't agree with now, and you're absolutely right that that's very closely related to self-esteem, but, also, if I hadn't had that process of re-establishing the idea of morality as something that is real and not trivial and not something that you can merely feel your way through on a case by case basis I might not be that way.

Of course, I cave in on occasion like everyone else, but I'm no longer blind to the possibility that I could fall into the pretence that everything's still ok...