Surprising that some extortion cases are considered ethical and something you can turn a blind eye on if the end goal serves majority of the people... say paying money to a criminal so food can be delivered across borders...
One reputable professor argued, when the President needs to do something bad, he turns to his right guy and issues a vague statement like "take care of this for me". He'll never know what the right guy would do ... and wouldn't even care as long as the task is done.
One reputable professor argued, when the President needs to do something bad, he turns to his right guy and issues a vague statement like "take care of this for me". He'll never know what the right guy would do ... and wouldn't even care as long as the task is done.
I disagree with this because you can't drop the context. Just because the President does not explicitly state an action, the right hand man has some basis for understanding otherwise he would not do it. He needs to be certain if he's about to commit a crime. So the president does know, just he is rationaliseing to evade responsibility for his decisions.
Surprisingly some extortion cases are considered ethical and something you can turn a blind eye on if the end goal serves majority of the people... say paying money to a criminal so food can be delivered across borders...I disagree with this because ethical behaviour is never evading. A goal that serves the common good is usually a rationalisation for some personal end that is dubious. In the case you cite, the context is too narrow to make a judgement, though if the goodies shoulld not be breaching the rights of others, i.e. Not initiating the use of force, as opposed to using it as a defensive tool.
