|
UFie Ethics 101 | by Naruki | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Grmph. A 90. | by bitflipper | 2003-06-02 09:48:13 |
|
I agree 100%. Ethics is not so much 'your benefit | by LurkerMo | 2003-06-02 10:08:45 |
|
Ethics have nothing to do with benefit. (n/t) | by Slamlander | 2003-06-02 11:22:42 |
|
I disagree | by bitflipper | 2003-06-02 11:29:33 |
|
Benefit may be a temptation but | by Slamlander | 2003-06-02 11:37:54 |
|
Ethics requires you to decide based on everything | by NOLAWitch | 2003-06-02 11:39:12 |
|
Oklay, then what's the difference between ethics | by Slamlander | 2003-06-02 11:54:14 |
|
Honesty versus ethics | by bitflipper | 2003-06-02 12:08:05 |
|
Ethics and Morals. | by LurkerMo | 2003-06-02 12:17:57 |
| Lovely! Somebody brought up "The Golden Rule" |
by bitflipper |
2003-06-02 12:23:20 |
Thank you, Mo! I love tossing this one into the crowd for discussion:
If I wield sufficient power to ensure that I can act with impunity (say I'm some kind of ruler-by-divine-right, or something), then why should I refrain from pursuing my every whim, regardless of who gets hurt in the process? I can hurt anyone -- they cannot hurt me in return because I wield absolute power and authority over them. Similarly, I can exploit anyone. I can make lying to me punishable by the most excruciating tortures. All of this is within my ability. So, now, why should I consider others when making any choices at all? Does the Golden Rule apply to an absolute ruler? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Saddam Hussein on "Where Are They Now?" | by NOLAWitch | 2003-06-02 12:25:52 |
|
Cute. But the Butcher of Baghdad... | by bitflipper | 2003-06-02 12:32:10 |
|
Was it? Nobody knows where he is. | by Naruki | 2003-06-02 12:39:45 |
|
You've got a point, there | by bitflipper | 2003-06-02 13:01:59 |
|
It's not that they ARE exempt, it's that they | by NOLAWitch | 2003-06-02 13:07:57 |
|
Excellent quote | by bitflipper | 2003-06-02 13:30:31 |
|
No reason at all | by hyzenthlay | 2003-06-02 13:22:38 |
|
Amen to that | by bitflipper | 2003-06-02 13:42:06 |
