Good Will and the Golden Mean

A Florida pastor's plan to Burn Korans at his church on Spetember 11th, ignited protests for a second day by hundreds of Afghans, who burned U.S. flags and shouted "Death to America," prompting the top U.S. commander of american troups in Afghanistan to say that the pastor could be increasing the threat to his troops.The protesters were well aware of the pastor's inflammatory comments, such as "Islam is an evil religion," because they have spread via the Internet. Jones has also authored a book, "Islam Is of the Devil." Gen. David Petraeus said he is outraged by the pastor's decision to burn the Quran, which, he said, could "endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort here."

"It puts our soldiers in jeopardy very likely," he told ABC News Tuesday. "And I think, in fact, images from such activity could very well be used by extremists here and around the world."
Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Jack Keane, an adviser to Petraeus, called it "outrageous" and "insulting to Muslims."
"It's also insulting to our soldiers in terms of what they stand for and what their commitment is to this country and to the Muslims in this country," Keane told ABC News.
But Jones vowed he would go ahead with the Quran burning, even knowing the concerns of Petraeus and Keane for the safety of U.S. troops.
"Of course we care. It'd be tragical if because of this one person died. But at the same time, we do not feel responsible for that," Jones said in an interview with ABC News.
"What we are doing is long overdue," he said. "We are revealing the violence of Islam that is much, much deeper than we'd like to admit."
 The ethical relathionship here is that it's being argued that religious intolerance isn't a negative, inciting violence and promoting hate isn't a negative. The only incentive given, or suggested for doing the "right thing" is the potential negative outcome for those who share a specific ideology in the U.S. troops., By the reasoning of Kant, those acting based on a religious ideology would not be practiving "good will" or adhearing to the Golden Mean of Aristotole.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/burn-quran-day-sparks-protests-afghanistan-petraeus-endanger/story?id=11569820

By MARTHA RADDATZ (@martharaddatz)

KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 7, 2010

Do we value the Golden Mean?

US troops fire on Iraqi detainees after burning their Holy Quran books in front of them. Amateur footage recently posted on the internet shows American troops firing live ammunition on Iraqi prisoners during a riot in a US detention facility in Iraq back in 2005.
The footage shows US forces using disproportionate force and live rounds against prisoners at the US prison facility Camp Bucca located in Iraq.

The Iraqi detainees were protesting the American troops' desecration of Islam's holy book, the Qur'an.
At the time, the US military tried to cover up the bloodshed, saying the riot happened when the prisoners confronted a search for contraband in the prison.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) later revealed that the real cause of the riot was the desecration of the Holy Qur'an by US troops. Four prisoners were shot dead and five others wounded during the violence. This act was commited for the express purpose of inciting violence and oppressing those with no means of reprisal. On a philispohical level,
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral code that essentially states either of the following:
 One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.
This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion. These behavior exibited here not only reflects poorly upon the individuals, but the organizations in which they represent and speaks to a level of intolerance and hypocrisy that extends far beyond any one act, or one groups isolated actions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8Q3dOWomVI

Week 2: Reality TV or Reality?

On Febuary 14th, 2012 a story by Barbara Starr, writting for CNN world news broke that received little, if any attention.  Two children have been rearrested in southern Afghanistan for being prospective suicide bombers, the International Security Assistance Force said.The two "young male" would-be bombers were detained in the past week, the ISAF said in a written statement.The two kids, both ten years old, were arrested along with three adults.Last summer, Afghan President Hamid Karzai pardoned 20 such teenagers ranging in age from 8 to 17. Some of the 20 youngsters told Karzai they had been recruited by the Taliban, strapped with vests and ordered to detonate them near foreigners, the president's office said in a statement last August. Militants told the youngsters that the blasts would spare them but kill the foreigners

This pertains to an ethics in that it illustrates just how far an individual will go to futher their own agenda, even when said agenda is promoted at the expense of the lives of others. These children were young, impressionable, and naive yes, but are they really guilty of their actions? Do they posses the necessary capacity to grasp the consequences of those actions? Should the facilitators and those indoctoring them to carry out these acts be held as accountable if not more so than the children commiting the physical act? Some would take the position that "man has free will" and is thus able to choose what he does at all time, but is that really applicable in this instance, or in this type of environment? On a final note, what does it say about American society when we glamorize and morn an entertainer such as Whitney Houston, who while talented, was still merely an entertainer, yet we ignore the systematic manipulation of young, impressionable children who are coerced into doing horrific things throughout the world? What does this say about your values and perpectives as a country and a species?


http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/14/ten-year-old-suicide-bombers-arrested/?hpt=hp_t3

1st posting

On Tuesday, January 31, 2012, the Virginia assembly passed a bill that would require a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion, the first of several measures this year that are expected to dramatically alter abortion rights in the state. The legal implication for this measure are far-reaching and on a national level viewed as unconstinutional. In this instance, the state has taken the position of forcing a woman to get a medical procedure that is not necessary in addition to the cost associated with it. In addition, this measure has financial implications that would affect every woman seeking to pursue a procedure that is both deeply personal and is legal as per federal law. The ethical dynamics associated here are this, does the state have the right to force a citizen to recieve a medical procedure that is neither necessary, or benificial to anyone involved? The states position is that once an ultrasound is preformed that a woman would refuse said abortion due to emotional impact of the results. This manipulation of the legal system into a citizens life is a direct challenge to an individuals right to their own body. If the state is entitled to force this procedure, do they have other rights to ones body? What is the states obligation to the health and well-being of it's citizens? In this country the right of a woman to have an abortion has been established as legally acceptable for over 30 years now, this law doesn't seek to make it illigal, but rather undesireable and tramatic to the woman considering it. My position is that while the state can and should mandate behaviour such as fireardms, tobacco, alchohol and other substances that can be abused and influence others, it is not, in my opinion the right of the state to limit, or enforce any citizen to recieve a medical treatment that doesn't benifit their health.
Atricle title: Ultrasound Bill Passes Va. Senate: by Anita Kumar Washington Post