HA! That was funny. This guy says we should all be close-minded because if we are open-minded then we will accept every idea and ideal including immoral ones. He fails to mention that while maintaining an open mind, one can still retain opinions and beliefs. In fact, I find his definition of open-minded not only impractical, but paradoxical.
Not all corporations are bad. But America has more unethical corporations then any other country. As far as legal protection to businesses goes, there is plenty of that. What do you call corporate welfare? Anyway, the businesses that I find the most questionable don’t need the protection of the government to engage in their questionable activities, they do that perfectly fine on their own. Let me ask you something do you think corporations should just be allowed to do what ever they want? If not, then how do you think they should be punished for engaging in immoral or unethical activities?
It’s on my list of immoral activities next to lying. Propaganda consists of smudging the facts to make your point. Call it what you like, I call it lying.
If the American public would accept:
- Unjust wars are wrong
and - Wars are unjust when the reasons given to wage such a war are not sufficient
and - and one sufficient reason must be that there is either an actual act of aggression or an imminent threat of an aggressive act.
Then the American public would accept that the war in Iraq was unjust. NOT because evidence of WMD’s could not be found after the end of major hostilities had been declared, but because if the evidence was sufficient to START WITH, one wouldn’t need to justify it with evidence AFTER THE FACT. You could just use what evidence you had before hand.
Like o, I don’t know, so and so bombed a naval base in Hawaii for example.
The fact is that WE, the United States were the aggressors, and, in the very least, our leaders are morally culpable for the deaths of thousands of people, many of whom were innocent of everything except the apparent crime of being a Muslim. Some folks take the unjustified deaths of thousands of innocent people to be very serious… it is the same sorta stuff that made the attacks on America on 9/11 morally reprehensible. If more Americans (hell, people everwhere) could tear off their opaque relativistic veils and see that, the world would be a better place.
That said, I doubt Moore will make that kind of argument. From what i have seen of his work, I am not entirely certain he can. But, knowing the American public, his approach will no doubt be successful, alas, small is the number of folks who aren’t easily swayed by a bit of pathos.
Whenever you try to argue a point of view, you are propagandizing. Propaganda is simply trying to persaude someone else to believe your point of view. It does not necessarily equate lying, but it does usually involve presenting your version of the truth.
We all see the world in a different way, and its no crime to try to get another individual to see your point of view, and that’s all propaganda is.
As long as all sides are allowed to engage in propaganda, and all individuals are given equal access to the different viewpoint, I don’t see how ptopaganda is immoral.
Hello GateControlTheory,
Excellent post; especially this:
It’s also ironic that as governor of Texas, Bush was the overlord for over one hundred executions of persons who, in most cases, were guilty of murdering one human being. To date, Bush’s lies have directly resulted in the deaths of over ten-thousand innocent persons. And yet I’ve just read that he’s been treated to a hero’s reception by his Republican faithful during his fund raising this past week.
If I should whip up a crowd into a hateful frenzy by means of lies and half-truths such that they burned my enemy’s house and killed his family, at a minimum, I’d be held accountable for inciting a riot.
And yet through a carefully orchestrated “dog and pony show” of lies and half-truths, Bush whipped up the American public, sending troops to inflict “shock and awe” on a nation at peace. However, in this case not only are there no repercussions, but he’s being received as a conquering hero; a demigod.
Someday, historians are going to look back at this episode of mass hysteria with wonder and regret; the same wonder and regret I feel at this moment in time.
GateControlTheory wrote:
If by “WE” you include me, then I’m going to object. I marched in several street protests. I attended a town meeting hosted by my US Congressman, Bernie Sanders. Ditto for a candlelight vigil a few days before the bombs were dropped. I signed anti-war petitions, I wear anti-war buttons on my backpack and my shirt collar. I’ve had an Impeach Bush bumper sticker on my car since the start of Bush’s drum-beat for war. I wrote and spoke out against this madness from the very beginning. I’m a US citizen and yet I’ve no hand whatsoever in this. In fact, I’ve done everything within my power, short of going to jail, in order to stop Bush’s murderous rampage.
GateControlTheory, here I’m going to argue against your contention (one you made in another thread) that institutions are morally culpable:
The United States, is not the aggressor. If it were, then I would be as guilty as Bush; ditto for my eight year old nephew. Again, an institution is not morally culpable; it’s the American people who either created or bought into the “big lie” that bear moral responsibility for what has happened. If the United States is responsible, then my unborn nephew (the ultrasonographer thinks it’s a boy) is guilty as well.
If countries are morally culpable, then a case might be made that the fire bombing of the medieval city of Dresden was justified.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of … rld_War_II
If countries are morally culpable, then the entire complement of their citizenry: men, women and children, are culpable for what their leaders order. If countries are culpable, then as Germans, German Jews should be held responsible for their own suffering and death in the concentration camps. Does this seem even remotely reasonable, GateControl Theory?
Regards,
Michael
heh, my apologies… I went into rabid Categorical Imperative mode there.
what i meant to imply, but should have been more clear:
Is that those responsible for deciding to wage an unjust war are morally culpable for the deaths that result.
We, the aggressors wasn’t a fair statemnet, I know. I was kind of thinking how History would view us as a whole years from now.
And no, I don’t believe that an entire nation should be held to task for the decisions of their leader, but the majority that supported those decisions and those who actively sought to limit dissent that further enabled the administration to carry out an immoral war are, when it comes down to it, ‘involved’ morally with their decisions.
I should be careful to avoid implying such broad strokes next time.
This might derail the thread a little bit, but I noticed both Polemarchus and myself admitted that what history/historians might think of the latest war as being a factor in how we, ourselves, looked at the war.
I am wondering now, if something like that couldn’t be built into an ethical system? Maybe it has already been done… but what I am thinking is, say, a system where either you consider a potential act as being judged from a historical perspective,
or
assume that knowledge of the act itself is made universal (not just the act itself but your motivations for commiting said act). Could you live with everyone in the world knowing what you did and why you did it? If you can’t, then such an act can be considered unethical.
Sorry, I know this doesn’t have a place in this thread, but I had to write it down while I was thinking about it. I have to give this more thought, I think there may be something to it. (Unless of course there is an ethical system like this already out there).
No apology needed, GateControlTheory. I’m just arguing my position.
Kant’s first categorical imperative first comes to mind: “Act on on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.”
It’s an interesting idea GateControlTheory (btw, may I call you GCT or something else for short?). But right away, I can think of several obstacles. I’d first point out that people notoriously disagree on both the historical facts and what conclusions we ought to draw from those facts. Paul Valery wrote:
“History…teaches absolutely nothing, for it contains everything and gives examples of everything.”
While I would dispute this claim as too extreme, nevertheless, I do sympathize with Valery’s warning. Second, history tends to be written by the victors, not by the moral. Churchill joked, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”
My third caveat is that men must act without the luxury of hindsight. That is, we can only guess at the long-term effects of our present actions.
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” – Kierkegaard
“Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards.” – Vernon Sanders Law
Still, I think it’s great that you’re thinking “outside the box,” GateControlTheory. Please remember that most of our novel ideas are delivered stillborn. I dismiss nearly out-of-hand the vast majority of the products of my own “original” thinking. The important thing is to keep the thoughts streaming; to keep thinking. When you hear about someone’s great idea you never get to hear about the hundreds of not-so-great ideas they discarded along the way. In other words, don’t be discouraged by your non-starters. They’re a necessary byproduct of your creative thinking.
“…it could be said that one’s intellectual history is the history of one’s mistakes.” – Jorge Gracia, Metaphysics and its Task, p219
Best wishes,
Michael
You so called intellectuals are the problem. Your Kantian ideas are spreading evil. Man is good.
this guy is almost as bad as whitelotus!
he’s sitting somewhere in the deep woods of arkansas, typing away on this here thang…
apologies to the other serious folks on here. i will not pollute this thread with sillyness anymore. sometimes i just can’t resist throwing a ZINGER out there.
Yeah, I guess I was mainly referring to a certain form of propaganda, namely misinformation (or disinformation). Though propaganda may mean expressing a collective view point, most people take it to have a sinister meaning.
Hmmmmmmmm… I think there is a difference between the institutions and the people who live under them. The institutions, i.e. the system of government (including officials), financial institutions, and other organizations which rule by force are responsible for the deaths over seas. The actual American people have a minimal responsibility (though still some) for not overthrowing these institutions which are supposed to be representing them. Either they are not representing the American public majority, and we as citizens need to take the power back and devise new ones, or they are representing the American public majority and that majority is responsible (at least to a considerable extent) for the deaths over seas.
Yeah, that’s what Hitler thought too…
i don’t think that’s an accurate definition of propaganda at all. now DarkMagus is generally a very nice fellow, but its very irritating to him when people simply assume they know what something is, make up a defintion that they think sounds good…then run with it, making all kinds of haphazard conclusions and arguments based on their own improvised assumptions. its not that difficult to do 10 seconds worth of research before firing off random statements. the world of academia has pretty much everything covered. its wise to assume that you know nothing, even if you do know a little something.
anyway, there is a fairly specific and widely accepted definition of the term which goes a little something like this…
now getting more specific to the US:
we (americans anyway… i’m not willing to speak for folks in other countries) are certainly under the influence of a “giant propaganda machine”. i never stated or suggested that it was or is “controlled by one hand”, however. if you wanted to put it in those terms, you could accurately say that it is controlled by one “class”, namely the “business class” or what is often referred to as “corporate america”. this class of course represents many individuals. this sort of political system would be called a “polyarchy”.
anyway, propaganda is disseminated by members of the corporate class to influence and persuade the average american person (you and i, working folks, housewives, etc.) to accept and believe in the “corporate agenda”. the corporate agenda is rooted in the ideology of capitalism. this is a very widely studied phenomenon. it has a very rich history not only in terms of the practice and dissemination of propaganda to acheive various political (and business-related) ends, but also in terms of its place in academia. this is now known as “journalism” at nearly every major academic institution in the US. but in previous, more honest times, it was referred to as simply “propaganda”. only fairly recently has its place in academia been firmly rooted.
there is so much more to say… this post isn’t even close to being “the tip of the iceberg”.
“Public Opinion” by Walter Lippman was highly influential. Lippman set the standards for “journalism” in the US (journalism being the nice friendly name for propaganda).
“Propaganda” by Edward Bernays was written in 1928 and has some very interesting (and creepy) things in it. The first lines read:
wow.
“Necessary Illusions” by Noam Chomsky takes a more critical look at the use of propaganda (aka “journalism”) in our contemporary society.
like i said, just because you haven’t heard of something doesn’t mean its not out there waiting to be discovered. your definition is completely incorrect, and it has been since at least… 1928! you just didn’t know it, but now you do. 
DarkMagus is a harsh but good-intentioned catalyst of knowledge and wisdom.
That sounds about right to me…
Hello Alien,
Directly above, you’ve reposted DarkMagus’ entire post in order to reply to it with less than one sentence.
It’s not necessary to quote everything someone has written in order to reply to it. Doing so just fills up the thread with lots of redundant material and people end up scrolling back and forth to find your response. If you want to address someone’s post in general, it’s best to begin the quote with several words and add three ellipses to it (…), otherwise, just include a specific quote where you want to adress it.
Thanks,
Michael
[b]DARK MAGGIT
why don’t you make statements relevant to the pupose of this site. You have no philisophical point of view, just hatred towards any successful person.
Objectivism is a system of ideas consistant with one another. These ideas are consistant with the irreducible primary that “existance exists”. A true understanding of the Universe from the philisophical standpoint.
I cannot explain what I mean here, you will have to learn on your own. But go ahead and take what I say out of context and make up your own idea for me and call me more names.
The picture was funny.
[/b]
i don’t care about objectivism. i guess its not possible for me to explain to you that its more of a “pop” philosophy than anything serious. and besides, those of us with an actual, serious interest in learning/doing philosophy don’t limit ourselves to one particular way of seeing things. that kind of attitude would be much more appropriate to getting at “the purpose of this site”. but what do i know. and that stuff you said about …“the irreducible primary that existence exists’” (i corrected your spelling errors there, buddy)… well that just made me laugh even harder. not helping your case at all there, tex… not helping it at all.
and that was a nice cop-out …“i can’t explain…you figure it out”. i’ll just let that stand out all by itself with no witty comment from me …as it is the stupidest thing ever typed on a computer.
You should be my personal spell checker at US $5.50 an hour.