Guest Gunner Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 My stand is VERY VERY clear – My benchmarks of moral and ethical behavior of people who want to hold public office and represent me are the HIGHEST and for good reason. We need such unwavering standards to ensure that corrupt and shady individuals do not get into positions of power. If we make a compromise today by saying ‘Oh well' date= all he did was send pictures.. He did not even do anything..’, then that will send a message to the rest of crooks out there that similar disciplinary transgressions will also be tolerated. Things can get only worse from there on. My grouse is with callint it morality. Just say that each elected rep has a set of rules to follow and I can live with that. Morality is a vastly different subject. As the great Oscar Wilde said, "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike."
Ram Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 My grouse is with callint it morality. Just say that each elected rep has a set of rules to follow and I can live with that. Morality is a vastly different subject. As the great Oscar Wilde said, "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike." I did not, and never intended to, to kickstart a discussion on what constitutes moral or ethical behavior. If you want to interpret what I said as a set of rules of people holding or wanting to hold public office, then that is fine by me. But the larger point remains – there’s no room for consideration or compromise, when it comes to expectations of conduct for people wanting to occupy positions of power. If because of this we lose some really good men, then that is the price we have to pay to make sure bigger, more dangerous crooks dont sneak into the system.
gs Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Disagree. This way even criminals may just be called "morally bankrupt" - should they be allowed if it doesn't affect their performance as a politician? Is being unfaithful a crime? It's definitely morally unacceptable and may have caused trauma to his wife/family but does this make him a criminal?!? Is it a factor that would affect his job performance -- be it a politician or a plumber? If it doesnt, why should his job performance be evaluated against the events in his personal life?
Guest Gunner Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I did not, and never intended to, to kickstart a discussion on what constitutes moral or ethical behavior. If you want to interpret what I said as a set of rules of people holding or wanting to hold public office, then that is fine by me. But the larger point remains – there’s no room for consideration or compromise, when it comes to expectations of conduct for people wanting to occupy positions of power. If because of this we lose some really good men, then that is the price we have to pay to make sure bigger, more dangerous crooks dont sneak into the system. Would these rules invade personal facets of their lives such as whom they sleep with?
Sir_Afridi Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Why do US politicians confess about their scandals?? They should learn from our politicians and always deny their acts
Ram Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 Would these rules invade personal facets of their lives such as whom they sleep with? Let me be very clear just one more time; If somebody seeks to represent me in public office, especially those among the higher echelons of power where critical decisions, often related to war and peace, are made, then it is my expectation that this person exhibits flawless judgement and character. And if he or she indulges in any behavior that contradicts this position - whether it be being corrupt or having deviant relations with other women out of marriage or an existing relationship or showing glimpses of hate or prejudice - then that person immediately loses all legitimacy and must be removed from that postion of power. This is is not a debate of morality or ethics. This is about having in place a foolproof system that makes sure dangerous crimInals and hate mongers don't get into positions of power.
Sachin=GOD Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 Let me be very clear just one more time; If somebody seeks to represent me in public office, especially those among the higher echelons of power where critical decisions, often related to war and peace, are made, then it is my expectation that this person exhibits flawless judgement and character. And if he or she indulges in any behavior that contradicts this position - whether it be being corrupt or having deviant relations with other women out of marriage or an existing relationship or showing glimpses of hate or prejudice - then that person immediately loses all legitimacy and must be removed from that postion of power. This is is not a debate of morality or ethics. This is about having in place a foolproof system that makes sure dangerous crimInals and hate mongers don't get into positions of power. +10000000000 :hatsoff:
Guest Gunner Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 Let me be very clear just one more time; If somebody seeks to represent me in public office, especially those among the higher echelons of power where critical decisions, often related to war and peace, are made, then it is my expectation that this person exhibits flawless judgement and character. And if he or she indulges in any behavior that contradicts this position - whether it be being corrupt or having deviant relations with other women out of marriage or an existing relationship or showing glimpses of hate or prejudice - then that person immediately loses all legitimacy and must be removed from that postion of power. This is is not a debate of morality or ethics. This is about having in place a foolproof system that makes sure dangerous crimInals and hate mongers don't get into positions of power. Adultery is a discussion on morality. You can't walk around that. I take objection to mainly saying that his judgement is impaired because he slept with another woman who is not his wife. That doesn't make sense. Are you in any way able to demonstrate that sleeping with other women impairs his judgement. Let us stick to adultery and sexual relations I am not discussing prejudice, hate etc, I never did.
Ram Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 Adultery is a discussion on morality. You can't walk around that. I take objection to mainly saying that his judgement is impaired because he slept with another woman who is not his wife. That doesn't make sense. Are you in any way able to demonstrate that sleeping with other women impairs his judgement. Let us stick to adultery and sexual relations I am not discussing prejudice, hate etc, I never did. I am really sorry, but if you actually think that an adult having out of marriage/relationship sexual relations with another women is actually evidence of 'sound judgment' then I must you are hopelessly out of touch with the rest society's moral code.
Sachin=GOD Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 Adultery is a discussion on morality. You can't walk around that. I take objection to mainly saying that his judgement is impaired because he slept with another woman who is not his wife. That doesn't make sense. Are you in any way able to demonstrate that sleeping with other women impairs his judgement. Let us stick to adultery and sexual relations I am not discussing prejudice, hate etc, I never did. Entering into relationships outside of marriage is neither sound judgement nor morally correct IMO and if a person cannot show sound judgement or cannot be morally correct in his personal life then how can you entrust him with the responsibility of running the country or representing the people?
Guest Gunner Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 I am really sorry' date=' but if you actually think that an adult having out of marriage/relationship sexual relations with another women is actually evidence of 'sound judgment' then I must you are hopelessly out of touch with the rest society's moral code.[/quote'] If anything even that is a big if it only demonstrates that he made a poor decision in his personal life how does that undermine his professional judgement? Would you like to be judged on the same yardstick at your work place?
Guest Gunner Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 Entering into relationships outside of marriage is neither sound judgement nor morally correct IMO and if a person cannot show sound judgement or cannot be morally correct in his personal life then how can you entrust him with the responsibility of running the country or representing the people? I don't care about morality. If we start talking about morality then there are no rules you can set for all to follow since my moral codes are not the same as yours. Heck, what I think is perfectly moral might sound insane to you and vice versa. This is why I said early on that morality cannot be a KPI for anyone including politicians.
Ram Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 If anything even that is a big if it only demonstrates that he made a poor decision in his personal life how does that undermine his professional judgement? Would you like to be judged on the same yardstick at your work place? I don’t want to repeat myself. I have addressed this point several times already in this thread.
Guest Gunner Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 I don’t want to repeat myself. I have addressed this point several times already in this thread. You kept repeating that you hold the highest level of judgement as a professional indicator by which you judge politicians. But then you brought in adultery/sexual relations which is a purely judeo-christian religious view on morality and called it judgement. This is where we are in disagreement. If you want to view the principles of governance and the kind of politicians you want to have sub-consciously through this narrow prism then I am fine. Discussion closed. :two_thumbs_up:
punjabi_khota Posted June 8, 2011 Author Posted June 8, 2011 You kept repeating that you hold the highest level of judgement as a professional indicator by which you judge politicians. But then you brought in adultery/sexual relations which is a purely judeo-christian religious view on morality and called it judgement. This is where we are in disagreement. If you want to view the principles of governance and the kind of politicians you want to have sub-consciously through this narrow prism then I am fine. Discussion closed. :two_thumbs_up: :hmmmm2: Err..what about the hindu view
Guest Gunner Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 :hmmmm2: Err..what about the hindu view Dude that was the whole point, the whole concept of "adultery" is theocratic morality. I cannot understand how we can apply that as a KPI for a politician in the modern society. But the concept of adultery as it stands today arises from Judeo-christianty, Ten commandments yada yada. This is why I am a bit surprised that Ram is stating this view.
Sachin=GOD Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 I don't care about morality. If we start talking about morality then there are no rules you can set for all to follow since my moral codes are not the same as yours. Heck' date= what I think is perfectly moral might sound insane to you and vice versa. This is why I said early on that morality cannot be a KPI for anyone including politicians. if the people do not care about morality then why should their representatives (i.e. the politicians) care about being moral?
Guest Gunner Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 if the people do not care about morality then why should their representatives (i.e. the politicians) care about being moral? I don't follow you, what do you mean?
Sachin=GOD Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 I don't follow you' date=' what do you mean?[/quote'] you said that you don't care about morality. I'm saying that if you don't care about morality then you shouldn't expect politicians to be moral because after all they're the people's representatives but I've seen that people tend to have great reservations about the politicians nowadays being immoral.
Guest Gunner Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 you said that you don't care about morality. I'm saying that if you don't care about morality then you shouldn't expect politicians to be moral because after all they're the people's representatives but I've seen that people tend to have great reservations about the politicians nowadays being immoral. I don't have any views on morality and certainly not for other people. I am saying that morality cannot be a KPi to judge anyone'w professional work.
Recommended Posts