>

So, often the ethical debate misses that flip side of the argument. The true answer in many cases is to do nothing. Yet in doing nothing there is no progress, no progress means nothing gets done and stagnation occurs which is a travesty also. So, then in ethical debate this is to be considered, as well, we must consider the opposite in the “Ends do not justify the means.” A pragmatists can do this, politicians have to, otherwise they cannot survive? Is this best for the whole? Sometimes, because you have forward progression, other times it is not good for the whole, but serves the few. Yet sometimes what is good for the few is good for t

Have you ever been at work and noticed something highly unethical happen. Did it bother you to the point you almost quit? Well did you know that 38% of all Americans have had the same experience? A recent survey seems to indicate that we have an ethics problem in the United States and it is not just in Government or with cheating spouses. It is also prevalent in the Work Place as well. But if you do quit your job, well who is going to pay the bills?

It is amazing how easy in life it is to become 'ethically unemployable', but integrity is something that is becoming more and more scarce in our world. But you know what can you expect from a bunch of humans. The interesting thing about ethics is that it is so perception based. The person at your work who caused this ethical event that you are now thinking about since I brought it up? I bet they had some justification didn’t they?

So hold that thought for a moment and consider the issues of the "Ends and Means" debate. They say sometimes; “The Ends do not justify the means.” Indeed this is true, sometimes, but a pragmatist might say that sometimes the Ends are so great that the means are justified to win, complete the task or perhaps in a company make the deal? But still you shrug, why? Well, because you are an ethical person and we are deeply troubled discussing this aren’t we? But we also realize that there are rare circumstances when as much as we do not wish to admit it, well the ends might possibly, justify the means

For instance, inadvertently hurting a few to help the whole. Now that stands against everything we stand for in the US, however realize that it is unfortunately bathed in truth that sometimes you have too. I am sure you can consider examples of this and we are dealing with these issues now in some recent political events, which have been brought to light aren’t we? Or rather aren’t we always?

Now then is the “Ends do not justify the means” debate is an ethically troubling issue indeed. But what if we turn it around; what about the "Means do not justify the ends?" For instance what if you do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do, rather than focus on the ends (winning) and then your poor decisions fails to secure the necessary objectives and the whole of all involved are severely hurt because you did everything "politically correct" for instance but in doing so you built a really bad Dam? And the dam broke and everyone died. But you can save face because you did what was ethical in the process to build the dam without offending anything or anyone else?

So, often the ethical debate misses that flip side of the argument. The true answer in many cases is to do nothing. Yet in doing nothing there is no progress, no progress means nothing gets done and stagnation occurs which is a travesty also. So, then in ethical debate this is to be considered, as well, we must consider the opposite in the “Ends do not justify the means.” A pragmatists can do this, politicians have to, otherwise they cannot survive? Is this best for the whole? Sometimes, because you have forward progression, other times it is not good for the whole, but serves the few. Yet sometimes what is good for the few is good for th

a bunch of humans. The interesting thing about ethics is that it is so perception based. The person at your work who caused this ethical event that you are now thinking about since I brought it up? I bet they had some justification didn’t they?

So hold that thought for a moment and consider the issues of the "Ends and Means" debate. They say sometimes; “The Ends do not justify the means.” Indeed this is true, sometimes, but a pragmatist might say that sometimes the Ends are so great that the means are justified to win, complete the task or perhaps in a company make the deal? But still you shrug, why? Well, because you are an ethical person and we are deeply troubled discussing this aren’t we? But we also realize that there are rare circumstances when as much as we do not wish to admit it, well the ends might possibly, justify the means

For instance, inadvertently hurting a few to help the whole. Now that stands against everything we stand for in the US, however realize that it is unfortunately bathed in truth that sometimes you have too. I am sure you can consider examples of this and we are dealing with these issues now in some recent political events, which have been brought to light aren’t we? Or rather aren’t we always?

Now then is the “Ends do not justify the means” debate is an ethically troubling issue indeed. But what if we turn it around; what about the "Means do not justify the ends?" For instance what if you do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do, rather than focus on the ends (winning) and then your poor decisions fails to secure the necessary objectives and the whole of all involved are severely hurt because you did everything "politically correct" for instance but in doing so you built a really bad Dam? And the dam broke and everyone died. But you can save face because you did what was ethical in the process to build the dam without offending anything or anyone else?

So, often the ethical debate misses that flip side of the argument. The true answer in many cases is to do nothing. Yet in doing nothing there is no progress, no progress means nothing gets done and stagnation occurs which is a travesty also. So, then in ethical debate this is to be considered, as well, we must consider the opposite in the “Ends do not justify the means.” A pragmatists can do this, politicians have to, otherwise they cannot survive? Is this best for the whole? Sometimes, because you have forward progression, other times it is not good for the whole, but serves the few. Yet sometimes what is good for the few is good for t

son and we are deeply troubled discussing this aren’t we? But we also realize that there are rare circumstances when as much as we do not wish to admit it, well the ends might possibly, justify the means

For instance, inadvertently hurting a few to help the whole. Now that stands against everything we stand for in the US, however realize that it is unfortunately bathed in truth that sometimes you have too. I am sure you can consider examples of this and we are dealing with these issues now in some recent political events, which have been brought to light aren’t we? Or rather aren’t we always?

Now then is the “Ends do not justify the means” debate is an ethically troubling issue indeed. But what if we turn it around; what about the "Means do not justify the ends?" For instance what if you do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do, rather than focus on the ends (winning) and then your poor decisions fails to secure the necessary objectives and the whole of all involved are severely hurt because you did everything "politically correct" for instance but in doing so you built a really bad Dam? And the dam broke and everyone died. But you can save face because you did what was ethical in the process to build the dam without offending anything or anyone else?

So, often the ethical debate misses that flip side of the argument. The true answer in many cases is to do nothing. Yet in doing nothing there is no progress, no progress means nothing gets done and stagnation occurs which is a travesty also. So, then in ethical debate this is to be considered, as well, we must consider the opposite in the “Ends do not justify the means.” A pragmatists can do this, politicians have to, otherwise they cannot survive? Is this best for the whole? Sometimes, because you have forward progression, other times it is not good for the whole, but serves the few. Yet sometimes what is good for the few is good for t

e means” debate is an ethically troubling issue indeed. But what if we turn it around; what about the "Means do not justify the ends?" For instance what if you do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do, rather than focus on the ends (winning) and then your poor decisions fails to secure the necessary objectives and the whole of all involved are severely hurt because you did everything "politically correct" for instance but in doing so you built a really bad Dam? And the dam broke and everyone died. But you can save face because you did what was ethical in the process to build the dam without offending anything or anyone else?

So, often the ethical debate misses that flip side of the argument. The true answer in many cases is to do nothing. Yet in doing nothing there is no progress, no progress means nothing gets done and stagnation occurs which is a travesty also. So, then in ethical debate this is to be considered, as well, we must consider the opposite in the “Ends do not justify the means.” A pragmatists can do this, politicians have to, otherwise they cannot survive? Is this best for the whole? Sometimes, because you have forward progression, other times it is not good for the whole, but serves the few. Yet sometimes what is good for the few is good for t

>

So, often the ethical debate misses that flip side of the argument. The true answer in many cases is to do nothing. Yet in doing nothing there is no progress, no progress means nothing gets done and stagnation occurs which is a travesty also. So, then in ethical debate this is to be considered, as well, we must consider the opposite in the “Ends do not justify the means.” A pragmatists can do this, politicians have to, otherwise they cannot survive? Is this best for the whole? Sometimes, because you have forward progression, other times it is not good for the whole, but serves the few. Yet sometimes what is good for the few is good for the many (Ayn Rand type theory) so that also must be considered. So ethics is tough, but suffice it to say the best way to look at things is to encircle them from all perspectives and then you get a better picture. Ask yourself is it fair for all concerned; yes or no? If not find a third way and think hard on better and more ethical decisions; Think on this in 2006.