|
Post by webrunner on May 18, 2009 5:02:08 GMT -7
If I may interject, Thomas. Is it always unethical for a politician (or anyone else) to change their mind, so to speak? I understand we're talking about moral codes here, but even there, isn't there a certain morality to being open to what your voters want you to accomplish rather than steadfastly holding to your own agenda?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on May 18, 2009 5:41:14 GMT -7
I was wrong.
Three very important words to remember and to be able to acknowledge.
Morals and ethics are refined over time, my position on a specific issue may change under closer examination and respectful challenge by others (constituents) - not on all things, but in grey areas. So yes you can change a position without violating an ethical principle
|
|
|
Post by matthew on May 18, 2009 6:26:27 GMT -7
Another hypothetical, the ethical dilemma:
A state governor is morally opposed to federal government mandates and is also opposed to raising taxes. The federal government authorizes funding for the state's failing Unemployment Insurance fund on condition that benefits be extended to additional workers. To maintain moral opposition to federal mandates, the governor must refuse the federal assistance, but to maintain moral opposition to tax increases, he must accept it. How should the governor proceed?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on May 18, 2009 6:41:16 GMT -7
Another hypothetical, the ethical dilemma: A state governor is morally opposed to federal government mandates and is also opposed to raising taxes. The federal government authorizes funding for the state's failing Unemployment Insurance fund on condition that benefits be extended to additional workers. To maintain moral opposition to federal mandates, the governor must refuse the federal assistance, but to maintain moral opposition to tax increases, he must accept it. How should the governor proceed? Good question but I see this more as a political philosophy question than a moral dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 18, 2009 7:04:14 GMT -7
I don't know about Snil but I would need more info. Who has determined that the State's unemployment program is "failing"? In what way? I ask because I think there's a third response to that scenario that is not being offered.
|
|
|
Post by matthew on May 18, 2009 7:26:08 GMT -7
Hypothetically, the state faces an increasing number of new jobless claims with little prospect for improved employment. That crisis is depleting the state's UI fund. By statute the UI fund must maintain a certain balance. If that balance is not maintained, by statute a deficit tax is automatically levied against employers.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on May 18, 2009 7:37:30 GMT -7
OK the only moral/ethical question I can conceive here is one's position on the role of the state in supporting its citizens in a time of economic need.
Personally, as I have stated multiple times, a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. With that as my moral basis for this issue, the question then becomes what is the best way to care for these unemployed, meet the statutory funding requirement. Were I the governor, I would accept the federal funds as a stop gap measure, and examine the existing funding mechanisms to see if in the future such a temporary funding situation does not re-occur. My greatest "moral" duty is to provide for those temporarily unemployed.
|
|
|
Post by flash on May 18, 2009 7:40:44 GMT -7
Snill Then we are forced to take the position that morals and ethics are subjective and have no clear line drawn in the sand.Simply these lines move over time by force of perspective of an issue or action at any given time.Not a true code by the meaning of the word at all just a very loose guide? Thomas the Flash
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on May 18, 2009 8:00:01 GMT -7
Thomas No I do not think morals and ethics are subjective in the sense that they adapt by situation. If you look at my answer I basically am saying that the moral delimna is not how to fund unemployment, the moral position is do you fund unemployment. I do not this, as I previously stated that positions on Federal Mandates or Taxation are moral or ethical positions, they are political philosophy.
The ethical question to me is what role does Government play in taking care of its needy - my position whatever aid it can provide.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 18, 2009 8:40:33 GMT -7
Thomas No I do not think morals and ethics are subjective in the sense that they adapt by situation. If you look at my answer I basically am saying that the moral delimna is not how to fund unemployment, the moral position is do you fund unemployment. I do not this, as I previously stated that positions on Federal Mandates or Taxation are moral or ethical positions, they are political philosophy. The ethical question to me is what role does Government play in taking care of its needy - my position whatever aid it can provide. what?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on May 18, 2009 8:42:00 GMT -7
I did not see a moral/ethical situation in the original scenario
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 18, 2009 9:15:26 GMT -7
OK the only moral/ethical question I can conceive here is one's position on the role of the state in supporting its citizens in a time of economic need. Personally, as I have stated multiple times, a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. With that as my moral basis for this issue, the question then becomes what is the best way to care for these unemployed, meet the statutory funding requirement. Were I the governor, I would accept the federal funds as a stop gap measure, and examine the existing funding mechanisms to see if in the future such a temporary funding situation does not re-occur. My greatest "moral" duty is to provide for those temporarily unemployed. Nooooooooooo don't take the Fed money. By doing that you open your state up to all the strings the Feds want to attach. Those strings change btw, you may think you're agreeing to one thing but Feds love to change the rules on you. Accepting the hypo and it's two options only, it's better to raise taxes. Besides, if you're a politician that's actually, morally opposed to raising taxes, that's not really being realistic anyway. For better or worse, taxes are how the govt. gets things done.
|
|
|
Post by flash on May 18, 2009 10:10:18 GMT -7
Snill I most disagree here.What is being put forth here is that one can be subjective to how one applys their moral and ehtical will in their actions and support of issues which arise before them in government. Subjective: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own state and processes. Subjectivism; a doctrine that individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of good and the right. Thomas the Flash
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on May 18, 2009 10:19:58 GMT -7
Snill I most disagree here.What is being put forth here is that one can be subjective to how one applys their moral and ehtical will in their actions and support of issues which arise before them in government. Subjective: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own state and processes. Subjectivism; a doctrine that individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of good and the right. Thomas the Flash Thomas You lost me. Walk me through your thinking, and I will learn. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by flash on May 18, 2009 10:40:26 GMT -7
Snill If the person in government who is making a moral or ethical call on a action or issues based on the apprehension that they voters will dislike their position and then waves their ethical and moral codes for the will of the voters than that's being subjective.No way around it.
|
|