Elsewhere, I've been involved in a discussion with some people who feel that Reagan and Johnson were terribly ineffective presidents, while Carter was the most effective we've recently had.
How does morality figure into the effectiveness of a President? Carter is, by all accounts (even those of his detractors), a scrupulously moral man--yet his Presidency has often been termed the low point of a very distinguished career. Nobody ever called Nixon "moral," yet he achieved some stunning results as president. The Reagan and Johnson White Houses played all the dirty tricks they could on their opponents, short of illegal maneuvers; but weren't both effective?
Do we need more ethics in politics? Is it possible to have ethical legislators and federal officials, given the processes necessary to advance one's political career? Is morality desireable in an officeholder, neutral, or a detriment to exercising a political office?
Your call.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
A very difficult question, especially 5 o' clock in the morning
I would think that effectiveness in modern politics is tighly associated with national economics, and the national economics perspective differs greatly from the perspective of the individual citizen. For instance, from a national economic perspective it's most healthy for a soceity to keep a certain percentage of the population unemployed. This might not be very moral considering how much suffering and pain unemployment can cause the individual and his/her close environment.
Personally, I think modern politics certainly need more ethics, but I fail to see any realism in this wish. Of course it's also a question of definition and personal opinions - what do we view as moral versus immoral?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I beleieve morality and ethics is something that is lacking in todays government, but it is something we won't see, ever, in the politics of the world. Their is a saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly". As long as this statement rings true, we will never find someone in a place of power that will govern us completly justly, or ethically. No matter what, we will always have a leader that will make some petty moves for personal gain. It is Murhpy's Law of politics.
Well, morality and ethics are two different things, in my opinion (at least in terms of politics).
Morality is so subjective, so intangible that it almost has no place in politics, though the word is bandied about with alarming frequency. I am frankly very tired of political questions being debated in terms of morality, since it results in so much spinning and not enough honest debate and logical assessment. Morality in politics is a poor substitute for intelligence. It panders to the lowest common denominator, contributes to hysteria, and treats the audience as dim-witted sheep. I would rather see political issues addressed in such a way that assumes the audience is intelligent and can make up their own minds. I want to be talked up to, not down.
Ethics, on the other are sorely lacking in politics. I don't see why a general code of behavior based on truthfulness, good will, and altruism can't be adhered. These things transcend the 'morality' of the masses (or, more often, the minority) of the moment. Ethics can be codified and read and agreed to by everyone. Conduct can then be judged by logic and sense, rather than by the loudest person in the bully-pulpit or the catchiest sound-bite.
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
Originally posted by Aegis Their is a saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly".
Which is only a problem if you’re powerless. Nietzsche once wrote, "The better the state is established, the fainter is humanity. To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task."I think that holds true. Machiavelli has some effective tips as well. Simply put, morality and power don’t go well together. Which isn’t to say everyone in a position of power is a complete bastard, but the more efficient ones are. I'd rather have a scoundrel who can get the job done, then an ineffectual boy scout as my leader.
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Originally posted by fable Elsewhere, I've been involved in a discussion with some people who feel that Reagan and Johnson were terribly ineffective presidents, while Carter was the most effective we've recently had.
How does morality figure into the effectiveness of a President? Carter is, by all accounts (even those of his detractors), a scrupulously moral man--yet his Presidency has often been termed the low point of a very distinguished career. Nobody ever called Nixon "moral," yet he achieved some stunning results as president. The Reagan and Johnson White Houses played all the dirty tricks they could on their opponents, short of illegal maneuvers; but weren't both effective?
Do we need more ethics in politics? Is it possible to have ethical legislators and federal officials, given the processes necessary to advance one's political career? Is morality desireable in an officeholder, neutral, or a detriment to exercising a political office?
Your call.
This seems to me to be the, for the most part, unanswerable question of "Do the ends justify the means?"
Protected by Saturn, Planet of Silence... I am the soldier of death and rebirth...I am Sailor Saturn.
I would also like you to meet my alternate personality, Mistress 9.
Mistress 9: You will be spammed. Your psychotic and spamming distinctiveness will be added to the board. Resistance is futile. *evil laugh*
Ain't she wonderful? ¬_¬
I knew I had moree in common with BS than was first apparent~Yshania
[color=sky blue]The male mind is nothing but a plaything of the woman's body.~My Variation on Nietzsche's Theme[/color]
Real men love Jesus. They live bold and holy lives, they're faithful to their wives, real men love Jesus.~Real Men Love Jesus; Herbie Shreve
Moral Politics.
No such thing in my opinion.
If Morality truly governed the politics of the world.
The african people would have stable govts, food and a decent standard of living.
Each independence movement now being put down, kashmir, Palestine, Aceh, East Timor, Basque, etc would all be solved.
If Morality works, national interest goes out the window.
The world would be a far better place in the case above in my opinion.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
Originally posted by Kayless Which is a problem, if you’re powerless. Nietzsche once wrote, "The better the state is established, the fainter is humanity. To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task."I think that holds true. Machiavelli has some effective tips as well. Simply put, morality and power don’t go well together. Which isn’t to say everyone in a position of power is a complete bastard, but the more efficient ones are. I'd rather have a scoundrel who can get the job done, then an ineffectual boy scout as my leader.
I agree, and I guess that is where the democratic system comes into play. We have the power, as a people, to instate soemone new if we don't like the old guy. Only problem with that, is that the new guy is always just as bad as the old guy. Why can't there be soem happy median in the world of politics.
In the United States and in many other countries, politicians grow up in a environment of corruption, in order to survive one must compromise, take a little money here and there for the campaign, take some favors, here and there. With the result being that even if a politician starts of being principled or moral, he or she either drops out or becomes part of the corruption and immorality in the system. So a general rule can be predicted the farther up the power ladder one goes the more corruption and immorality one will find. Also politics has never had anything to do with ethics, politicians of all stripes routinely sleep around, take bribes, steal, whatever, they all do it, but as the saying goes it is a only crime if one gets caught, if not it is not a crime. To a politician the appearance of morality is all that is necessary, not the acutual truth of morality. Oh well to damn verbose, but that is what I think.
I care not for endings or beginnings, but for the eternal and infinite spaces of the universe, and for the endless exploration of eternity, and mysteries which I will find plumbing the infinite depths.
"Do not turn inward to find peace and wisdom, turn outward instead to find liberation from the narrow boundaries of self", quote from Gary Paul Nabhan, paraphrased of course
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong" quote from Arthur C. Clarke, thought it was interesting.
Tips on living longer: eat right, exercise, and yes castrate yourself, eunuchs live longer then normal people.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Hmmm, is it moral to bump one's own topic when it gets buried? Are Moderators inherently immoral by the nature of their position?
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Hmmm, is it moral to bump one's own topic when it gets buried? Are Moderators inherently immoral by the nature of their position?
Well, with the power comes the corruption. Maybe his power as a Mod, Fable has become slightly vexed, and power hungry... Or, he could just be bored...
Originally posted by Aegis Well, with the power comes the corruption. Maybe his power as a Mod, Fable has become slightly vexed, and power hungry... Or, he could just be bored...
Does fable's immorality in bumping his own topic signify that he is indeed the right person for the Moderator job (since we've already established that more effective folks in power are amoral)? And did he get his current position by being immoral, or did his mod position make him so?
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
I agree entirely with Kayless, for my politcal representative, I want the slyest, trickiest most manipulative baste** around. So long as he/she represented my views and actually got things done!
Having played around a bit in local politics (yes I'm only 16, but hey) it's readily apperant that, for the whole, the "honest hard working people" that are politicians GET SCREWED. They get nothing done, and are subsequently cut to shreds by everyone else. The manipulative people are out there, but by nature a lot of them are pri***. However, they do get the job done.
Every so often there comes along a leader that is a basically honest trustworthy person that can play the game better than everyone else.
Look at Churchill, Eisenhower was too trusting but had his moments and Canada's own P.E. Trudeau, all great leaders who were, for the most part, moral people.
It can happen, it's just rare.
The waves came crashing in like blindness.
So I just stood and listened.
Politcs have to be ethical, no matter if that makes things difficult or not. If the only leaders to achive results is the ones that doesnt care about ethics then this points towards a huge flaw in our present democratical system. And then our focus should be to improve that system, not pretend that ethics arent important if you happen to have power.
It may well be that ethical behavior disapear once you are the one with the crown but there are other ways to take decisions then apointing a leader.
And dont give me that "It isnt possible to change" lecture. To let pessimism guide our views of possible and not possible isnt a good way to achive results either.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
Politics is about finding the best way of ordering society and how to implement such an order. "best" here can mean nothing else but morally best and therfore it seems to me impossible to keep morallity out of politics. (ethics = study of moral principles. or sometimes just moral principles)
That is of course in theory. In the political scene that govern most western democracies personal power plays a large role in forming the policies of a governement.
Personally i think that the best way to insure that democratecly elected governements behave moraly is to remove money and non-democratic influence as much as posible from governement.
If money can be freely given to politicians then that money quickly becomes more important than what people want and what is morally right.
An easy and quick way to do this is to ban donations to political parties ( like emron) and let the goverment finance the political parties election campains as a public service.
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
As i see it every person in government wants power, that is their main focus for being in their position, it is not a responsibility to the people that drives these men and women to the top, it is their lust for power.
The question becomes how many of us would be different if we found ourselves in their situations.
(I speak on this from a UK perspective if your country doesn't act in the way exampled above then i apologise for my presumptions and generalisations)
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Originally posted by Tom Politics is about finding the best way of ordering society and how to implement such an order. "best" here can mean nothing else but morally best and therfore it seems to me impossible to keep morallity out of politics. (ethics = study of moral principles. or sometimes just moral principles)
Is politics truly about determining the ordering of society? A culture that thought this might be expected to elect philosophers. Instead, I see replicated everywhere societies that elect wealthy lawyers and industrialists. What does this say about how most inhabitants view the rasion d'etre of politics? If I look at history, how many elected leaders worked towards this goal, and how many were more concerned with promoting business within their borders, and preventing any challenge to their occupancy of public office?
These goals seem unconcerned with morality.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I personnally believe this to be unanswerable, and it can never have a correct answer. This is not a right or wrong question, and nobody can decide whats right and wrong for anyone else.
*Gaxx slaps himself when he realizes that's what fable ment by "Your call". Gaxx slaps himself again as he realizes how little sense his post made.*
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
Is politics truly about determining the ordering of society? A culture that thought this might be expected to elect philosophers. Instead, I see replicated everywhere societies that elect wealthy lawyers and industrialists. What does this say about how most inhabitants view the rasion d'etre of politics? If I look at history, how many elected leaders worked towards this goal, and how many were more concerned with promoting business within their borders, and preventing any challenge to their occupancy of public office?
These goals seem unconcerned with morality.
Well thankfully most people have noticed that philosophers cant organise their own thoughts let alone society. We need politicians that get things done - and lets face it the only time philosophers get a move on is when they can get a free lunch.
I do actually belive that there are politicians that see it as their duty to organise society in the way that is best for the people that live in it. prima facie this would be in their own interest since people should vote for somebody that does a good job for them.
Needless to say things are more complicated than this - what with people usually voting for the wrong guy.
I think that we can use the word 'politics' in two ways. originaly i guess it was a way of refering to the governing of a country. but now we also use it to say " ohh thats just politics" if we want to talk about the powerbroking that goes on in governement and elsewhere.
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
