• Recent Articles

  • Mindful Computing
  • Mindful Voting - The 2008 Presidential Election
  • Hair Transplant Surgery Review
  • Mindful Living for the Self Employed
  • Finding Affordable Health Insurance
  • ZenniOptical.com Review
  • How Does Science Contribute to Knowledge? (Truth Vs. Practicality)
  • Is All Knowledge Good?
  • How to Live an Authentic Life
  • Ethical Animal Treatment - My Cat is Smarter Than Your Baby

• Categories

  • Featured
  • Mindful Food
  • Mindful Growth
  • Mindful Health
  • Mindful Ideas
  • Mindful Living

• Archives

  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007

• Search

Article Writing Service
Fresno Jobs

The National Intelligence Estimate is intended to be a policy-guiding document for the American President. Normally, when this document says that something is the case, the President has taken this to be true. Not so with our current mental giant, George W. Bush, who chose to ignore the official report that Iran is no longer actively engaged in a nuclear weapons program. Rather than act accordingly and acknowledge his rhetorical errors over the past several months with regard to Iran, Bush chose to spin this revelation into proof that, because Iran did have such a program at one time, they could start it again and thus remain a major threat to US security.

What does this have to do with ethics? A great deal actually, as it represents a common mistake and a lingering source of conflict for applied ethicists. Often, ethical disagreements are actually arguments over the facts. Gun control is a prime example. The debate over whether we ought to allow widespread gun ownership is quality fodder for considering social policy ethics and individual rights. However, this often breaks down into what the Bill of Rights actually says about this issue, as though this document tells us what we ought to do.

The problem, with regard to Bush’s inability to recognize that his views on Iran are flawed, is that it becomes difficult to determine what we ought to do when there is persistent disagreement over what is the case. Analogously, we cannot decide what we ought to do with regard to abortion if we cannot agree on the status of a fetus as either a full-fledged person or something less.

A further issue raised by Bush’s obstinate position on Iran concerns our ethical responsibility to change our views based upon relevant information. For example, suppose I hold the view that lying is always wrong, no matter what. My good pal, the ethical philosopher, provides me with numerous instances when lying may have been a positive thing. Perhaps he is a consequentialist who is focused on the outcome of certain benevolent lies. I might continue to hold the view that lying is always wrong, but I am obligated to consider my friend’s perspective and give some plausible reply to his concerns. Otherwise, my own position becomes suspect.

Bush has utterly failed to do this throughout his presidency, and his unwavering stance on Iran is yet another example of this ethical shortcoming. Close-minded stubbornness, especially in light of factual information, is not only frustrating and annoying, it is morally wrong. A president should set an example of good leadership, and good leaders listen to intelligent people and act accordingly. Bush does not do this, and the result is both poor leadership and a lousy example of appropriate conduct.

Perhaps the one bright spot of this ugly scenario is the example that Bush is providing for all of us. We often think of “setting an example” in a positive light, but many examples are not positive. They remain helpful to us because they show us, quite clearly, who we do not want to be and why we do not want to be a particular way. Thus, Bush is giving us a clear example of why we should be open-minded and use our reasoning to make important decisions. Otherwise, we risk following the example of our leader, which is clearly not what we want to do.

The presidential primaries are in full swing, and many individuals, as well as the news media, have been highly concerned with whether Mitt Romney’s religion, Mormonism, is a concern. Our nation has historically elected Protestants, with Kennedy the notable exception to that rule. There has also been some fuss over whether Barack Obama is Muslim. For the record, he is not. He lived in a Muslim nation for a few years as a child, and his stepfather was Muslim. He, however, is not. Read his biography, it will answer most of the questions you may have.

Romney, however, is definitely Mormon. So the question is whether or not this matters with regard to his bid to be President. The concern, from what I can tell, is that Mormonism has some odd beliefs and is considered by some to be a cult. I have read a couple of books on Mormonism, and there are definitely some rather disconcerting doctrines associated with the faith, especially with regard to gender relationships. However, whether or not this inhibits Romney’s leadership abilities is a different question.

Is Mormonism weird? Absolutely. However, Catholicism is also very weird in some respects, and Kennedy is widely regarded as having been a good president. Ditto Protestantism in certain forms. Frankly, as an affirmed atheist, I find all religions to be slightly weird, what with the whole notion of divine beings that we can’t see or verify the existence of in any meaningful way. So the question of whether Mormonism specifically represents a concern is somewhat vacuous. If it does, so does every other religion.

Our question has transformed into whether a person’s religious beliefs would negatively inhibit their ability to make good choices. I’m not totally sure how to answer this one, actually. To suggest that one’s beliefs, religious or otherwise, have no impact or influence on our decisions, is obviously false. So if we know that one’s religious beliefs must necessarily play a part in one’s decision-making, we have to identify if there is something different, and also negative, about religious beliefs over other types of beliefs.

At this point, our question has become much more complicated and cannot adequately be dealt with in this space. However, I will informally conclude that religious beliefs, though often quirky and occasionally downright strange, also lead people to sometimes do wonderful things. I see nothing at first glance which would warrant singling out religious belief as a generally negative component of our leaders’ decision making frameworks. Charity, kindness, and love are components of many religious dogmas, and if our political representatives draw on these types of values in leading our nation, I see reason to rejoice rather than object.

This also has clear implications for our everyday lives. The world is full of religious persons. Many of them, it seems, do make choices from their particular religious perspective. Sometimes these decisions are confusing and ridiculous, but other times they are quite wonderful. As with most things, we should look not to the letter of a particular religion, but to its spirit. Bizarre and fantastic dogmas do not change the reality of kindness and love that many religions espouse.

The Dalai Lama believes that religion is the best place to cultivate an attitude of kindness towards the world. While I don’t think this is a necessary component of being a loving person, it seems to help some people be better people. The point is that whatever works for you, is what works for you. By focusing on right actions, rather than right beliefs, we come to a proper evaluation of religions outlooks.