All isms are failures.
Unethical behaviour can easily be rationalized, defended and promoted to the unthinking mob.
Take for instance the War on Iraq. Hussain had nada to do with Bin Laden. No problem. He had WMDs. Lack of proof? No problem. Do you want to be responsible when Hussain nukes another country? So we'd better attack now andlet the chipsfall where they may. The war is illegal? No problem. It's a just cause.
We could take Ontario's school system as an example too. Religious discrimination? Oh, well do you not respect the contstitution? it's been like that since the beginning. Have you no sense of history? Do you not respect our traditions? You'rs asking us to change the constitution. Have you no sense of pride in your country?
You see how it works. No that's rationalization.
It is, but the perpetrator, the guy with the agenda, knows that what he is doing is wrong ... no different than Russell Williams. They know its wrong, but rationalize it in various ways ... one of which is the belief that they can get away with it.
Machjo;Just to take an example said:I have a problem with someone who puts six million people in gas ovens. Sort of flies against the old adage of "Do Unto Others". I'd say he knew he was doing wrong. A guy threw a grenade into a room Hitler was occupying, and a table leg saved him. The punishment to the perpetrator- his entire village was executed!!!!!!!!!!
OK, now that's where we disagree. Russell knew it was wrong. As for those who supported the Iraq War and those who support religious discrimination in Ontario, I dn't know if they really think of it as wrong, or as a just cause in the case of Iraq and the idea that the majority has the right to rule in the case of Ontario. After all, the whole point of rationalization is to make the unethical sound ethical. Now those who rationalize these things, do they believe in it themselves? I don't know. If we consider though how many people they've convinced, then we must accept that they may believe in it too. And if we say they all know it's wrong, then we have to accept that we have a population the majority of which will vote for an immoral policy knowing that it's wrong. That doesn't say much for Canada's moral stance on things. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I don't believe Canadians are that cynical. I think many actually do believe that their stances are ethical. Same with Americans, and heck, same with the German who voted Hitler in, and perhaps even Hitler himself.
And just to clarify again, rationalizing that you can get away with an act is different from rationalizing the act itself.
Just to take an example, Russell Williams knew what he was doing was wrong and did not try to defend it at all. Hitler, on the other hand? I don't know. For all we know, he genuinely believed he was fighting a noble cause against Jews and the communists, for the love of Germany, and he attempted to sell his idea. That's the difference. Russell knew he was wrong. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing.
OK, Speeding in a lot of cases is accidental, so set that one aside. Most "average Joes" recognize fraud and theft for what they are and don't get involved in it- but higher echelons regard it more as entitlement. Cheating on spouses crosses all classes as does murder.
Bush knew all along that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that Irag was not behind the 911 planes, yet he perpetuated the lie to achieve his own goals ... to conquer Iraq, a task that his daddy failed to achieve. He also did it to attempt to gain control of the middle east oil fields.
Hitler took over at a time when everyone was suffering economic failure. Someone had to be blamed, and Hitler chose Jewish people.
OK, if Bush knew what he was doing was wrong, then he was not just crazy, but outright evil. I'm not convinced that he knew, but for the sake of argument, let's say he was. That doesn't change the fact that he was trying to rationalize it to the rest of us. Russell didn't even attempt to convince us that what he was doing was right or noble.
Bush kept up the front as long as he could, but then the info leaked ... and I cannot remember the names of the husband/wife undercover CIA couple that leaked the info ... but they made it pretty clear that they had reported prior to the US attacking Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush claims that he had a epiphany in a drunken stupor where God told him to run the country. I guess he took that to heart and assumed that he was doing God's will, regardless of truth or ethics.
Bush, knowing the truth, went on to lie to everyone to promote his own agenda. I see Williams in the same class ... a guy that put on a facade of being a decent, honest, loyal man ... all the while screwing everyone he could and hoping that no one caught on.
Bush knew all along that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that Irag was not behind the 911 planes, yet he perpetuated the lie to achieve his own goals ... to conquer Iraq, a task that his daddy failed to achieve. He also did it to attempt to gain control of the middle east oil fields.
Hitler took over at a time when everyone was suffering economic failure. Someone had to be blamed, and Hitler chose Jewish people.
accidental?
I speed 100% of the time I'm on the highway. I figure the normal speed for a divided highway is 120 km/h, the posted limit is 110.
Based on the other traffic, I'd say 90% of the population agrees with me.
It's not accidental.
As for fraud and theft, many people seem to exaggerate insurance claims, expense accounts, etc etc...and lots of people feel free to surf the internet at work, or use the photocopier for personal use, etc...which can all be classified as fraud and theft...it's all in the degree...very, very few people are squeaky clean.
I've gotten to wonder if people in positions of power or prestige tend to rationalize the impropriety of unethical conduct? What do you think?
At work I used to use the copier for a copy for my personal use if I needed it, by the same token I generally started work a few minutes early and quit a few minutes late, so I didn't feel too guilty about the 10 cents I cost the outfit for the copy.
I think that if you analyse what you've just written, that's exactly 'rationalizing' the behaviour. Which proves my point - it's not just people in high places. It's pretty much everyone.
Of course it's rationalizing the behaviour, but the subject of the post is rationalizing improper behaviour- I honesty doubt if taking a photocopy is improper when you've worked overtime at no charge. :smile: Perhaps in this case "justifying" would be a better term than rationalizing.
One good example I can think of is with politicians giving themselves meal allowances that include $25 for breakfast. When a poor down and out person who is on the street is lucky if he/she can get a meal allowance of $25 a week.
What if the politician works overtime?
Overtime for politicians is a little nebulous- I don't think they have an 8-5 work schedule. :smile: That is probably justified with a salary in excess of $100 grand a year. :smile: