Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
Omaira
()
Date: July 10, 2011 11:36PM
Has a double standard of morals and ethics tilt into Politicians that set their behavior standards apart from the rest of the population?
Morals by many dictionaries and websites is defined by the personal character of individuals. Further, ethics emphasizes a communal classification in which morals are applied. This implies ethics to scrutinize standards of codes in behavior exercised by groups who which individuals are a part such as religion, culture, etc. In laymen terms, morals are shared ideas philosophized by the system one may or many not uphold. Morals and ethics can be objective or subjective, and not always employed.
Identifying whether or not Public Servants standards of morals and ethics are held in higher regards than the mass is both conflicting and controversial. One may say that in lieu of Politicians (Public Servants) holding a hierarchy position that reflects to a degree on our nation and its image which sets us apart from other nation, then yes, politicians have a higher moral obligation. The position of politicians obligates them to adhere to moral code of conduct because it declares the politicians operational ability within his or her profession to be of substance. In this sense, politicians are anticipated to uphold codes which rules and guides their demeanor, to be on a professional level, make morally right decisions in their personal life, for their nation and its mass.
Conversely, others may scope the use of morals and ethics applied by politicians separately from personal and professional. Individual may disconnect morals and ethics from politicians because politicians are elected by their ability to perform a task that will better the nation (i.e., economy, educational system, etc.), hence, not being hired for their moral characteristics that composes their persona. Furthermore, one may also firmly argue the constitution to not have a moral code for those who are employed by the government; article VI of the Constitution. Logically this action can be translated as moral codes somehow impeding the capacity of Public Servants to perform their duties to the best of their means. Under this notion, lack of morals and ethics has minimum to do with politicians' capability to carry out their professional duty.
Electorates vote for individuals expecting their electives to uphold their same values of system. Hence, holding politicians to high moral conduct; separating them and their stands of moral ethics from the mass. It is explicable that for electorates and the masses to trust those who represent society, however, government members are humans and are prone to make mistakes, not flawless. Electives cannot be held on dissimilar standards than the mass, or scrutinize on a paradoxical standpoint than society. It is not possible to pass judgment on Public Servants if we the mass ourselves do not permanently act with high moral conduct at all times. How true are we? It is unwise to carry the philosophy that ethics and integrity are given solely for people who solemnly take oath of office as politicians, because what applies to one applies to all. There are no morals or ethics totality, only partaker to the codes of conduct that are driven by morals and ethics.
Morals by many dictionaries and websites is defined by the personal character of individuals. Further, ethics emphasizes a communal classification in which morals are applied. This implies ethics to scrutinize standards of codes in behavior exercised by groups who which individuals are a part such as religion, culture, etc. In laymen terms, morals are shared ideas philosophized by the system one may or many not uphold. Morals and ethics can be objective or subjective, and not always employed.
Identifying whether or not Public Servants standards of morals and ethics are held in higher regards than the mass is both conflicting and controversial. One may say that in lieu of Politicians (Public Servants) holding a hierarchy position that reflects to a degree on our nation and its image which sets us apart from other nation, then yes, politicians have a higher moral obligation. The position of politicians obligates them to adhere to moral code of conduct because it declares the politicians operational ability within his or her profession to be of substance. In this sense, politicians are anticipated to uphold codes which rules and guides their demeanor, to be on a professional level, make morally right decisions in their personal life, for their nation and its mass.
Conversely, others may scope the use of morals and ethics applied by politicians separately from personal and professional. Individual may disconnect morals and ethics from politicians because politicians are elected by their ability to perform a task that will better the nation (i.e., economy, educational system, etc.), hence, not being hired for their moral characteristics that composes their persona. Furthermore, one may also firmly argue the constitution to not have a moral code for those who are employed by the government; article VI of the Constitution. Logically this action can be translated as moral codes somehow impeding the capacity of Public Servants to perform their duties to the best of their means. Under this notion, lack of morals and ethics has minimum to do with politicians' capability to carry out their professional duty.
Electorates vote for individuals expecting their electives to uphold their same values of system. Hence, holding politicians to high moral conduct; separating them and their stands of moral ethics from the mass. It is explicable that for electorates and the masses to trust those who represent society, however, government members are humans and are prone to make mistakes, not flawless. Electives cannot be held on dissimilar standards than the mass, or scrutinize on a paradoxical standpoint than society. It is not possible to pass judgment on Public Servants if we the mass ourselves do not permanently act with high moral conduct at all times. How true are we? It is unwise to carry the philosophy that ethics and integrity are given solely for people who solemnly take oath of office as politicians, because what applies to one applies to all. There are no morals or ethics totality, only partaker to the codes of conduct that are driven by morals and ethics.
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
Ut videam
()
Date: July 10, 2011 11:43PM
This is not the writing of someone with a 137 IQ. This is the writing of someone trying to appear intelligent and failing miserably.
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
Hatemotor
()
Date: July 10, 2011 11:47PM
There are no morals or ethics in politics, only the pretense of ,,,
Your posts are too long and painful to read,,,I can't help but think it's by design,,,
Your posts are too long and painful to read,,,I can't help but think it's by design,,,
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
Omaira
()
Date: July 10, 2011 11:49PM
This is raw and unrevised lit...topics where needed...so shoot me. LOL
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
figured it out
()
Date: July 11, 2011 10:22AM
The person writing this must be a politician.
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
reality bites sometimes
()
Date: July 11, 2011 10:36AM
Omaira,
You need to learn how to use prepositions and articles (just for starters). Beyond that your usage is pretty atrocious. You are looking up words in a thesaurus or dictionary and pretty much just pasting them in without any clue as to how they are typically used in English. How long have you been in the US? How old were you when you came to the US? How much time do you and have you spent around native English speakers? You really need to read a lot more higher level stuff if you ever hope to write with any kind of comprehensible style. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the best writers in any country are not those who are bilingual. Being bilingual has advantages, but writing is generally not one of them. If you don't believe me, check how many of the best novelists and journalists are bilingual (the prize winning ones). This is mainly because the person who is monolingual has spent their time refining only one language (instead of two) and therefore has spent twice as much time on that. You only have so much time in life. We live in a time when people specialize to an incredible degree. If I were you, I would find another area (not writing) in which to specialize in order to make a living. This does not mean that you are not thinking at higher levels or that you cannot converse at higher levels. It just means that you will have a hard time connecting to natives with writing. I am no ultimate judge on this---and you should keep writing---but I would definitely like to know how old you were when you came to the US, how many years you have been here, etc.
You need to learn how to use prepositions and articles (just for starters). Beyond that your usage is pretty atrocious. You are looking up words in a thesaurus or dictionary and pretty much just pasting them in without any clue as to how they are typically used in English. How long have you been in the US? How old were you when you came to the US? How much time do you and have you spent around native English speakers? You really need to read a lot more higher level stuff if you ever hope to write with any kind of comprehensible style. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the best writers in any country are not those who are bilingual. Being bilingual has advantages, but writing is generally not one of them. If you don't believe me, check how many of the best novelists and journalists are bilingual (the prize winning ones). This is mainly because the person who is monolingual has spent their time refining only one language (instead of two) and therefore has spent twice as much time on that. You only have so much time in life. We live in a time when people specialize to an incredible degree. If I were you, I would find another area (not writing) in which to specialize in order to make a living. This does not mean that you are not thinking at higher levels or that you cannot converse at higher levels. It just means that you will have a hard time connecting to natives with writing. I am no ultimate judge on this---and you should keep writing---but I would definitely like to know how old you were when you came to the US, how many years you have been here, etc.
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
omaira
()
Date: July 11, 2011 10:59AM
I was birthed in one of the United States Virgin Islands, and although it's an English speaking island, the dialect differs from the standard American. Can I make improvements with the way I write? Of course, there’s always room for improvement. The paper posted was not reviewed or revised, done fast, simply to engage people in topics that are more worthy than the vulgar topics I’ve seen in here. Constructive criticism is always accepted. By the way, there are many intelligent and successful people whom have problems in the writing department. Does not mean it makes them less intelligent? The answer is no—there were and still are plenty of highly intelligent people, whom although have a high IQ, faces difficulties in several areas, one of them being writing. But, you’re intelligent enough to know that.
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
omaira
()
Date: July 11, 2011 11:38AM
You remind me of someone I knew who told me several years ago that I couldn’t attain my CDL license because I am too femme, and not built to be a truck driver. Guess what sir? I did it.
As far as writing goes, many Hispanics, Italians, Jewish, Mexicans, amongst other monolingual speaking individuals, have won many literary awards, and are a part of American Museums of writers. You sir cannot deter me from what I am destined to be. Individuals such as you are my ammunition to continue and be successful. Thank you for the motivation.
Life is to be molded and crafted into one's own vision, not be left to the imagination of others. This is only one life, take the initiation, manipulate it, and make your mark in this Life! Distinguish yourself to better yourself. Live it, learn it, and you'll make it in life. omairae H.
As far as writing goes, many Hispanics, Italians, Jewish, Mexicans, amongst other monolingual speaking individuals, have won many literary awards, and are a part of American Museums of writers. You sir cannot deter me from what I am destined to be. Individuals such as you are my ammunition to continue and be successful. Thank you for the motivation.
Life is to be molded and crafted into one's own vision, not be left to the imagination of others. This is only one life, take the initiation, manipulate it, and make your mark in this Life! Distinguish yourself to better yourself. Live it, learn it, and you'll make it in life. omairae H.
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
Gosh
()
Date: July 11, 2011 11:57AM
Oh gosh! I see such high moral and ethics standings within society as a general. Mothers kill children and get away with it...businesses pollute, steal and cheat their way to fortune, priests fuck little boys. What the fuck world do you live in? Our politics is a reflection of who we are.
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
omaira
()
Date: July 11, 2011 12:23PM
@Gosh
Many voters in the United States assert when a person decides to become a public servant, he or she becomes public entities. In this sense, individuals theorize the idea that anything occuring in the public servant’s life, intimate or not, it becomes the public business because they were the one who elected the individuals to represent them. Any behavior constituted as unethical by the electorate, society feel an entitlement to have a say in what occurs in the life of the politicians. Why are some Americans so troubled by what occurs in the personal lives of public servants? It is not to say that one should overlook sex scandals by politicians but, how does their extramarital affair affects the society?
By politicians employing family values, in a sense, they distinguish themselves to be as real as an American as those who voted him or her in office. To a degree this school of thought is understandable. It is also comprehensible for society to become dismayed with such sex scandals when it affects the responsibility of the public official. On the other hand, what happens if the official extramarital affair does not have a negative effect on his or her obligation to his or her task?
It is not to say that infidelity is right because it is not. However, it is the persons committing the act personal business, unless it is affecting his capacity to function as a public servant. There are more relevant issues to embark upon such as our soldiers overseas whose, environmental issues, health care issues, poverty, crime rate, our educational system, the list is endless. The line needs to be drawn. It is unwise to invest time in querying who slept with whom—we lose track of the fundamental issues around us that are truly affecting us all.
Many voters in the United States assert when a person decides to become a public servant, he or she becomes public entities. In this sense, individuals theorize the idea that anything occuring in the public servant’s life, intimate or not, it becomes the public business because they were the one who elected the individuals to represent them. Any behavior constituted as unethical by the electorate, society feel an entitlement to have a say in what occurs in the life of the politicians. Why are some Americans so troubled by what occurs in the personal lives of public servants? It is not to say that one should overlook sex scandals by politicians but, how does their extramarital affair affects the society?
By politicians employing family values, in a sense, they distinguish themselves to be as real as an American as those who voted him or her in office. To a degree this school of thought is understandable. It is also comprehensible for society to become dismayed with such sex scandals when it affects the responsibility of the public official. On the other hand, what happens if the official extramarital affair does not have a negative effect on his or her obligation to his or her task?
It is not to say that infidelity is right because it is not. However, it is the persons committing the act personal business, unless it is affecting his capacity to function as a public servant. There are more relevant issues to embark upon such as our soldiers overseas whose, environmental issues, health care issues, poverty, crime rate, our educational system, the list is endless. The line needs to be drawn. It is unwise to invest time in querying who slept with whom—we lose track of the fundamental issues around us that are truly affecting us all.
Re: Moral and ethics in politics...is it set apart from the rest of the population?
Posted by:
omaira
()
Date: July 11, 2011 12:23PM
@Gosh
Many voters in the United States assert when a person decides to become a public servant, he or she becomes public entities. In this sense, individuals theorize the idea that anything occuring in the public servant’s life, intimate or not, it becomes the public business because they were the one who elected the individuals to represent them. Any behavior constituted as unethical by the electorate, society feel an entitlement to have a say in what occurs in the life of the politicians. Why are some Americans so troubled by what occurs in the personal lives of public servants? It is not to say that one should overlook sex scandals by politicians but, how does their extramarital affair affects the society?
By politicians employing family values, in a sense, they distinguish themselves to be as real as an American as those who voted him or her in office. To a degree this school of thought is understandable. It is also comprehensible for society to become dismayed with such sex scandals when it affects the responsibility of the public official. On the other hand, what happens if the official extramarital affair does not have a negative effect on his or her obligation to his or her task?
It is not to say that infidelity is right because it is not. However, it is the persons committing the act personal business, unless it is affecting his capacity to function as a public servant. There are more relevant issues to embark upon such as our soldiers overseas whose, environmental issues, health care issues, poverty, crime rate, our educational system, the list is endless. The line needs to be drawn. It is unwise to invest time in querying who slept with whom—we lose track of the fundamental issues around us that are truly affecting us all.
Many voters in the United States assert when a person decides to become a public servant, he or she becomes public entities. In this sense, individuals theorize the idea that anything occuring in the public servant’s life, intimate or not, it becomes the public business because they were the one who elected the individuals to represent them. Any behavior constituted as unethical by the electorate, society feel an entitlement to have a say in what occurs in the life of the politicians. Why are some Americans so troubled by what occurs in the personal lives of public servants? It is not to say that one should overlook sex scandals by politicians but, how does their extramarital affair affects the society?
By politicians employing family values, in a sense, they distinguish themselves to be as real as an American as those who voted him or her in office. To a degree this school of thought is understandable. It is also comprehensible for society to become dismayed with such sex scandals when it affects the responsibility of the public official. On the other hand, what happens if the official extramarital affair does not have a negative effect on his or her obligation to his or her task?
It is not to say that infidelity is right because it is not. However, it is the persons committing the act personal business, unless it is affecting his capacity to function as a public servant. There are more relevant issues to embark upon such as our soldiers overseas whose, environmental issues, health care issues, poverty, crime rate, our educational system, the list is endless. The line needs to be drawn. It is unwise to invest time in querying who slept with whom—we lose track of the fundamental issues around us that are truly affecting us all.