Sunday, August 10, 2008
Is it right to give someone immunity to prosecution if they are caught spying on you? Or if it is found the drug they developed and marketed was known to have bad side-effects?
There is ethical behaviour based on: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Ergo, we should insist on being able to view the emails and listen to phone calls of the telecom execs who approved the tapping of our phones and viewing of our emails, and also make them feed the dangerous medicines to their kids and themselves. But that would be immoral of us because we threaten the lives of innocent children. But the perpetrator is morally obliged to take his own medicine ..... and should be pressured to do so to see what their reaction is.
How can this be arranged?
There is ethical behaviour based on: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Ergo, we should insist on being able to view the emails and listen to phone calls of the telecom execs who approved the tapping of our phones and viewing of our emails, and also make them feed the dangerous medicines to their kids and themselves. But that would be immoral of us because we threaten the lives of innocent children. But the perpetrator is morally obliged to take his own medicine ..... and should be pressured to do so to see what their reaction is.
How can this be arranged?
