Should people who do illegal or immoral things be shunned from high profile jobs?
- Thread starter Zhukov
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, absolutely. That's part of the reason that I made sure to make the proviso "in some cases, within that society". It may be that in your society the warrior class can, and sometimes does, use members of the peasant class to test their weapons. Or that one of your kinsmen is sacrificed to appease the gods. Or that you belong to a caste that, while it isn't technically encouraged to kill you, it's frequently overlooked when you or one of yours is killed. Or that you can be executed for murder or treason.thaluikhain said:
Arguably, it's hard to find a society that doesn't condone the killing of human beings in some instances; relatively speaking, one that only kills members of other tribes, and only in a time of war, comes off as relatively enlightened.
Still, I think it remains true that a society exists because its members believe that those members have a better chance together than on their own. They may feel they understand its codes and traditions, and feel safe because they abide by them. They may feel that society-condoned killing is something that won't happen to them, or at least that they're far less likely to be killed by their own people than by the dangers they'd face on their own. In extreme cases, they may be operating under a kind of delusion- "The upper class really have our best interests at heart" being one that springs to mind. But when it is no longer credible that remaining part of a society is, at net, protective to its members, that society is bound to fall apart.
For politicians, I want good people in charge, because hopefully good people will be less corrupt. If your willing to cheat on your wife I have to wonder where your honour starts. What other bad things are you willing to do? Take bribes?
For other things? Meh, if they are good at their job who cares. Although drugs can cause their reliability to be questionable.
For other things? Meh, if they are good at their job who cares. Although drugs can cause their reliability to be questionable.
Yeah, like others have said, it depends on the circumstances.
For example, what's the timeframe? How much time has passed since they commited the act, and how severe was it? Of course I wouldn't like to have a murderer, rapist or abuser for a prime minister. Or bank robber or thief or embezzler or what have you.
But what about shoplifting done at a young age? It's still stealing and it's still wrong, but if it happened a long time ago and they've recieved punishment for it already, should this still be held against them and force them to resign from the jobs they have now? Somehow, I feel a bit torn on that point. On the one hand, stealing is never OK and shouldn't be excused. But on the other hand...well, like I said, if a lot of time has passed and they've already paid for their crimes...People can change in that timeframe.
I remember a few years ago where there was a...chairman, I believe(?), who had to resign from his job because it was discovered that he had donated money to an organization that was actively against gay marriage ten years prior. I mean, I can understand why the company took the action they did; You don't really want to be associated with people who want to minimize other people's rights.
But it was 10 years ago. How do we know he still feels the same way about gays today? Like I said, ten years is actually quite some time. He might've changed his opinion.
But, well, it's not like we'll ever know.
For example, what's the timeframe? How much time has passed since they commited the act, and how severe was it? Of course I wouldn't like to have a murderer, rapist or abuser for a prime minister. Or bank robber or thief or embezzler or what have you.
But what about shoplifting done at a young age? It's still stealing and it's still wrong, but if it happened a long time ago and they've recieved punishment for it already, should this still be held against them and force them to resign from the jobs they have now? Somehow, I feel a bit torn on that point. On the one hand, stealing is never OK and shouldn't be excused. But on the other hand...well, like I said, if a lot of time has passed and they've already paid for their crimes...People can change in that timeframe.
I remember a few years ago where there was a...chairman, I believe(?), who had to resign from his job because it was discovered that he had donated money to an organization that was actively against gay marriage ten years prior. I mean, I can understand why the company took the action they did; You don't really want to be associated with people who want to minimize other people's rights.
But it was 10 years ago. How do we know he still feels the same way about gays today? Like I said, ten years is actually quite some time. He might've changed his opinion.
But, well, it's not like we'll ever know.
Hm. Are you sure about that? Or is it just you're not thinking of examples that personally offend you?Zhukov said:
I'm not exactly sure what your passions are, but what if said figure says video games are a cancer on society? Or to go more extreme, what about said figure saying rape victims should have dressed more conservatively? You can't think of anything that, even if inconsequential to their jobs, would piss you off to the point that you'd want them booted from their position?
Noooo... not really?LetalisK said:
I have no problem with people, say, boycotting a business because of something the owner said. They're allowed to direct their custom wherever they choose for whatever reason. And, like I said in the OP, if the person's employer thinks the damage to reputation incurred by keeping the miscreant in their employ is enough to warrant a sacking then so be it.
Funny thing is, the actual incident that kicked off my train of thought was one that offended me. An athlete here in Australia was found guilty of domestic violence. The trial was a fucking messy business to boot. All kinds of attacks on the character of the victim, both in the media and the courtroom.
That offends me. I was like, "Wow, what a miserable fucking turd of a human being, beating up someone a fraction of your strength who can't fight back and threatening to kill her parents. Fucking disgusting."
Buuuuut I still didn't quite get on board with the people who were saying he shouldn't be allowed to play football. He's scum in my eyes, and of course he should cop whatever punishment the courts hand down, but I don't see what that has to do with being employed to skillfully kick a ball around a field.
Yes he should serve the full sentence of what ever ruling the court comes to. Still...Zhukov said:
Well look at it this way. After the way his defence was mounted, what team in it's right mind would take him on?
Steubenville did:KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
http://mashable.com/2014/08/13/steubenville-rape-football/
You'll also note that people like Polanski and Tyson still have careers.
If they've done something illegal then yeah.
Immoral is a different story. If it's something immoral that is not illegal in their country of their legal residency, then no. If they're cheating on their spouse then who honestly gives a damn? I certainly don't. They wouldn't be the first and certainly wont be the last. They also shouldn't be shunned for their beliefs. If they're racist, homophobic, or "Transmisogynist", then they have the right to be just that. As long as business wise they don't discriminate like some dumb ass, I don't care. If they don't wish to socialize with a certain ethnic group or homosexuals on a personal level, then they're fine.
This reminds me of the CEO that resigned in 2014 after a shit storm he received because he gave money to oppose the legislation of gay marriage in California in 2008. The guy didn't get to do a single thing in his new position and already they were giving him grief. If you are in a high profile position you lose your right to free speech, and I don't support that in the slightest. As long as your business decisions aren't fueled by your bigotry you can hold and support any non-illegal cause you wish. For instance, supporting the KKK would be an immoral action that gets someone shunned from high profile jobs due to the KKK being a violent domestic terrorist hate group.
Immoral is a different story. If it's something immoral that is not illegal in their country of their legal residency, then no. If they're cheating on their spouse then who honestly gives a damn? I certainly don't. They wouldn't be the first and certainly wont be the last. They also shouldn't be shunned for their beliefs. If they're racist, homophobic, or "Transmisogynist", then they have the right to be just that. As long as business wise they don't discriminate like some dumb ass, I don't care. If they don't wish to socialize with a certain ethnic group or homosexuals on a personal level, then they're fine.
This reminds me of the CEO that resigned in 2014 after a shit storm he received because he gave money to oppose the legislation of gay marriage in California in 2008. The guy didn't get to do a single thing in his new position and already they were giving him grief. If you are in a high profile position you lose your right to free speech, and I don't support that in the slightest. As long as your business decisions aren't fueled by your bigotry you can hold and support any non-illegal cause you wish. For instance, supporting the KKK would be an immoral action that gets someone shunned from high profile jobs due to the KKK being a violent domestic terrorist hate group.
rgrekejin said:
Completely agree, and I was going to post something similar. As far as I'm concerned, unless what they've done impacts their jobs directly, all that should matter how good politicians, athletes, celebrities, whatever are at their jobs and absolutely NOTHING ELSE. In fact, the general public shouldn't even hear of these kinds of things unless it has something to do with their jobs directly, and no, whether they're a scumbag or not doesn't count. For the cheating on the wife example, only the people and the family directly involved should even be aware it is happening and everybody else should be ignorant and not care if they somehow did find out about it, the same way as it would be with some random guy down the street cheating on their spouse, and for crimes if they haven't been tried and convicted their crimes shouldn't be known to the public either, especially since there's always a chance they'll get acquitted and have to live with a media circus ruining their entire lives.
I don't know about everybody else, but I define murder as any time one person kills another innocent person without provocation, either to themselves or others, for any reason aside from said provocation. Some societies may not always agree to this definition, but as a whole most societies follow a similar line of thought.thaluikhain said:
Provocation has a lot of leeway. Under your definition it's okay for a woman to murder her husband for cheating constantly, because that provoked her... That doesn't sit well with me.immortalfrieza said:
Murder is a legally unjustifiable homicide. For instance as a US citizen if someone threatens my life and I kill them in most states I won't be charged. Same goes if they say break in to my house, or attempt to car jack me. In some states it's also legal to use lethal force to stop the commission of a felony, or to prevent the perpetrator from fleeing the scene. I still can't shoot someone for calling me a "******" though, unless they then intentionally put me with in a reasonable fear of being seriously harmed, or losing my life.
I think it's because it's easy to hate these sorts of people when there's no reason not to, and it allows people to pat themselves on the back and say how moral they are.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
The moment there is any reason not to, when it is in their interest to overlook it, it's another matter.
Some of the celebs who are happy to work with Polanski have campaigned against rape. Only, they mean rape in a vague and nebulous sense that only involves people they don't know. I daresay that many people in Steubenville, if asked before the rape, would have said they hated rapists, and meant it. Probably included the rapists themselves.
Oh sure, but then what's "innocent" and "provocation"? These things can vary quite a bit. Words like "innocent" and "murder" only work within the context of what society/the observer thinks is morally right.immortalfrieza said:
Nope, provocation doesn't have any leeway. Provocation in this instance means harm to myself or to others. Pissing me off is not the same thing as trying to kill me, nor is cheating on me. I think we all know what I mean when I say provocation.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Zhukov said:
Ok if its something that has to do with breaking a law beyond like traffic citations, then yeah I don't think they should hold a public office (cheating on taxes should count against you when it comes to public office as well). However, who the flying fuck should be privy to whether or not you're faithful to your wife or not, lest you're again, breaking the law by way of prostitution or whatever... paying for strippers on taxpayer dimes and such.
Its something I personally hold that a person who holds public office should at least be an upstanding citizen, so as to show that they are not above the laws they are supposed to uphold. Otherwise it would undermine the rule of law. Why should they be immune to the things we have to answer to just because they hold office? I mean I don't give a rats ass who they're sleeping with but I do care if they pay their taxes on time if I have to by April 15th. Just like if I get convicted for felony posession of a drug, and stuck with that for life which will preclude me from a lot of jobs, they should get the same damn treatment no matter who they are.
No we don't because provoke has a dictionary definition that contradicts what you say.immortalfrieza said:
It has nothing to do with threat as you can see. A threat though a provocation is not the sole definition of the word.dictionary.reference.com said:
Case in point: Have you ever heard the term; "them's fightin' words!"
Simple idea, still doesn't give you the right to kill someone.
It doesn't contradict anything I said, I was talking about it in the legal sense.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
In any case, we both know perfectly well what I meant.prov·o·ca·tion
ˌprävəˈkāSH(ən/
noun
noun: provocation; plural noun: provocations
1.
action or speech that makes someone annoyed or angry, especially deliberately.
"you should remain calm and not respond to provocation"
synonyms: goading, prodding, egging on, incitement, pressure; More
annoyance, irritation, nettling;
harassment, plaguing, molestation;
teasing, taunting, torment;
affront, insults;
informalhassle, aggravation
"he remained calm despite severe provocation"
Law
action or speech held to be likely to prompt physical retaliation.
"the assault had taken place under provocation"
2.
Medicine
testing to elicit a particular response or reflex.
"twenty patients had a high increase of serum gastrin after provocation with secretin"
I think the politician sex scandal thing is stupid and is almost always blown out of proportion.
The thing is that people vote based on trust and doing something as simply disloyal as cheating on someone is an easy reason to consider someone untrustworthy.
If someone cheats on their wife they haven't "let the public down", just their family. Hypocrisy can make these kinds of things relevant but even that gets over played. Having said that people can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason they want and people vote for lots of terrible reasons.
Whereas for some reason sportsman can get away with raping underage girls and still make shitloads of money from people buying shirts with their name on because they're apparently role models.
The thing is that people vote based on trust and doing something as simply disloyal as cheating on someone is an easy reason to consider someone untrustworthy.
If someone cheats on their wife they haven't "let the public down", just their family. Hypocrisy can make these kinds of things relevant but even that gets over played. Having said that people can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason they want and people vote for lots of terrible reasons.
Whereas for some reason sportsman can get away with raping underage girls and still make shitloads of money from people buying shirts with their name on because they're apparently role models.
While that may be true, there are people who would say the exact same as you, but mean something very different.immortalfrieza said:
The trans/gay panic defence still exists in various places, for example.