tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post3968669891409684390..comments2023-12-29T15:25:46.925-05:00Comments on "THE VIEW FROM OUTSIDE MY TINY WINDOW": Post No. 126: Common Sense as a Way of LifeInspector Clouseauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-40317219724486097942009-07-14T11:40:23.017-04:002009-07-14T11:40:23.017-04:00To put it another way, you can use "common se...To put it another way, you can use "common sense" to help you get away with a crime; you cannot use morality to do so.Rodakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077919085157653816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-65024917072996537612009-07-14T11:38:05.071-04:002009-07-14T11:38:05.071-04:00In each one of these cases outlined above, common ...<em>In each one of these cases outlined above, common sense would suggest that the illegal conduct not be pursued.</em><br /><br /><br />I don't think so. The problem with common sense is that it is, by defininition, situational and subjective. I can easily see where person for whom "security" is paramount would decide that it was only "common sense" to hide things from congressional committees that might (as Douglas points out) leak information that would put "security" in jeopardy. Morality, by contrast, is based upon objective standards. We can argue about the ways in which cultural differences objectify differing moral standards; but that moral standards are objective and not situational, in whatever culture, is a given. Common sense looks at individual choices with reference to outcomes. Morality looks at individual choices with reference to immutable standards; it judges the act without reference to the outcome.Rodakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077919085157653816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-82277163738301816472009-07-14T07:31:57.368-04:002009-07-14T07:31:57.368-04:00Rodak wrote: "Where does morality come into i...Rodak wrote: "Where does morality come into it? For me it comes into it at the point where the CIA doesn't want to report what it's doing because it knows what it is doing is illegal, inhumane, brutal, and wrong. Common sense often leads one astray, morally."<br /><br />Rodak: We believe that you hit the nail on the head, squarely, when you said that the agency "knew" what it was doing was improper. That logic would also apply if it "suspected" that its conduct might be inappropriate, or that there was a "possibility" that its conduct was inappropriate, or they took actions to fit within the loophole to legitimize the otherwise illegal conduct.<br /><br />However, we disagree with you with respect to your suggestion that common sense often leads one astray morally. In each one of these cases outlined above, common sense would suggest that the illegal conduct not be pursued. And that's a good thing.<br /><br />There's a phrase often used in the legal world: "Steer far wide of the danger zone."Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-59333298281904815942009-07-14T07:22:08.720-04:002009-07-14T07:22:08.720-04:00It's not a matter of lying or not lying, or of...It's not a matter of lying or not lying, or of trust or distrust--it's a matter of law. Operative programs are to be reported to congress. Programs in the planning stages apparently fall into a gray area.<br />Where does morality come into it? For me it comes into it at the point where the CIA doesn't want to report what it's doing because it knows what it is doing is illegal, inhumane, brutal, and wrong. Common sense often leads one astray, morally.Rodakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077919085157653816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-90673566561574999112009-07-13T15:39:37.674-04:002009-07-13T15:39:37.674-04:00There is something called lying by omission which ...There is something called <i>lying by omission</i> which may seem to be at work in the case of the unreported CIA program. If anyone appearing before a Congressional (or Senate) oversight committee was asked to provide all active programs and the program was omitted from the list then we may state unequivocally that the person lied. If, however, the program is not active then is it a lie to omit it? I am not so sure. Ethics do come into play, of course, but so does the issue of rampant leaks from "sources" within these committees. Should one side be open and honest and truthful without doubt while knowing the other will not hold a confidence?<br /><br />Common sense says you tell your friends your secrets. After all, they are your friends. But doesn't common sense say you don't reveal all of your secrets when you know your friends have a difficult time not relating them to your enemies?<br /><br />I think <b>common sense</b> is not so simple a concept as one might suspect.Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752593286034877538noreply@blogger.com