12 July 2007

Which Comes First? Bad Morality or Bad Thinking?

George Bush still maintains that he can win Iraq. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda has, at a minimum, returned to its original state.

So, this is the question about events that turn out poorly, events that have a moral dimension. Does the destruction of Iraq and the strengtening of a terrorist group reveal George's poor thinking skills or immoral behavior?

And more broadly, which better explains bad behavior? A lack of understanding of consequences or a lack of concern about consequences?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't claim to understand what's in another man's heart whom I have never met. I could read and read and read all the conflicting information in the reports, and let this issue consume all my time, and still it would boil down to whether I believe in people killing one another. I'd say I think killing is wrong, but you see throughout recorded history, humans have always behaved this way.

My guess is the wealthiest people must be profiting from the war or it would not continue. If this is human nature, then I am unable to stop it. I tried to talk sense into people but the greed drive is insatiable. The conditioning is deep seated. All I can do is what I feel is right, as I've always done.

But don't ask me about this God damned war ever again, because I am sick to the gills with it, and I had nothing to do with the decision to fight. From the very beginning, this was not my intention. Never mind morality-- fighting just makes me sick, and there are far better ways to accomplish one's political aims.

Now please excuse me, this issue is boring as sin.

ThomasLB said...

I think GW was only able to see one outcome: victory, parades, and oil for all. That didn't happen, and all he knows to do is keep killing until it does.

He's like a cocaine addict who is so focused on his fix that he'll do anything to get it. He is completely unaware of the suffering he's leaving in his wake. He's got his eyes on the prize.

So I guess the answer to your question is "both," but lack of concern is merely a byproduct of selfishness and narcissism.

Anonymous said...

Has G.W.Bush ever suffered? People who have never suffered do not understand suffering. It's not a crime, but then again, one questions their ability to pass judgment from such a narrow standpoint. So there is something of value to be said for initiation rights.

Life Hiker said...

I'd argue that different people see different consequences, and perhaps that is why so many of us don't understand why Bush has done what he has done.

There are a lot of winners in the Iraq debacle, even though the Iraqi and American people are not among them.

I'd argue that there are a lot of really smart people who influence Bush, and they see themselves and their friends as winners in a continuing military quagmire in Iraq.

So it may be naive for us to think that events have turned out poorly. I'm cynical enough to at least speculate that those who benefit from sky-high oil prices, for example, are not at all unhappy about where we are in Iraq.

Our "bad behavior" suits them just fine, and they both understand and are concerned about consequences.

PEN-ETH-RA said...

L.H. all you are doing is rehashing my observations, and I notice that in the end of your statement, you twist the comment about bad behavior and direct it at the reader-- presumably at myself.

I do not see how making an accurate observation is bad behavior. If all bad behavior is, is to go against the economic grain, and that grain is full of filthy, squirming, drunken maggots, then how am I the subject of this 'bad behavior'?

There are concerns outside of the immediate financial rewards at play here, and it does not take a well educated man to be fabulously wealthy. Only educated, intelligent people are capable of understanding to what extent these men are endangering the futures of even their own kind in this insanity that masquerades as truth.

Life Hiker said...

Dear pen-eth-ra,

We may have had some thoughts in common,but I did not have anything you said, or you, in mind when I made the comment about "bad behavior". I believe RWorld called the behavior of the US bad, but those in the US who benefit from our insane war don't agree with him at all.

PEN-ETH-RA said...

LH, I simply found the whole handling of the 'bad behavior' theme to be very ambiguous by all parties. (It's part of being "infuriating".)

Ron said himself he prefers the company of those in their twenties. Well, at least he can afford it. I guess a woman in her mid thirties ought to look for eighty year old men to have conversation with so she can pass muster. By then the glaucoma is so advanced that the laugh lines and buttery soft love handles can no longer offend the tender sensibilities.