[Grovenet] Situational Ethics and private property WAS Future of Downtown Forest Grove

[David Morelli]

On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> David wrote:
>
> Ron, when the United States proposed invading Iraq, you did not  
> join  me in opposing that illegal action because you felt that the   
> government must know something that we didn't.  On occasion, you  
> do  accept situational ethics.  We all do.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> ... It is, for most of us, the ethical response to deadly force,  
> just as  fighting off an attacker on a street corner is an ethical  
> response. ...

Certainly, except in this case there was no attacker, and we knew or  
should have known that.  The intelligence community had already  
discounted the "yellow cake" story.  The United Nations was on the  
ground in Iraq and they said that there were no weapons of mass  
destruction.  The embargo was limiting the ability of the government  
to maintain their military.  There was no cause for us to invade a  
country at a time that that government was actually behaving better  
towards its citizens than it had in the past, when we supported that  
government and its actions.
>
> I consider war a lousy option and one that we should do everything  
> possible to avoid because it has huge costs - human and financial -  
> associated with it.

That may contribute to the American policy of "no first use" of  
force.  We have traditionally held off initiating an attack until we  
were attacked by an act of war.  Granted that sometimes it was a bit  
tenuous, like the Gulf of Tonkin attack, but we at least held to the  
illusion of holding to the principle.  This was a pre-emptive attack  
against a nation that had not done anything against our citizens or  
homeland, and had no capacity to attack our homeland.  North Korea  
certainly is gaining that capacity, so shall we attack them?
>
> To me, it wasn't an "illegal action" until it became clear that the  
> reasons the President gave for going to war - that Saddam was about  
> to attack "America and Americans" with weapons of mass destruction  
> in the wake of 9/11 - were false. Unlike others, including  
> yourself, I felt an obligation - that it was required ethically -  
> to give the President the benefit of the doubt.

We differ on that.  I feel that it is ethical to support your  
government when it is right and oppose it when it is wrong.  I didn't  
see any reason for doubt, based upon the information available at the  
time.  And it turns out that there was no hidden information to  
conflict with the known condition.

> ... Some seem to claim that having your bank call you to say the  
> government just decided to clean out your personal account because  
> they "needed  the money" is okay if it seems to serve some public  
> good, even though those required to pay are selected solely on a  
> random basis. I understand and respect their belief. I don't agree  
> with it, but I respect it.

Your example may be an situation of improper government action, or  
not, depending upon the situation.  I don't believe that the land use  
process that triggered M37 is similar.  The M37 wealth you describe  
was not in the bank.  It didn't exist until the property was  
subdivided, and the subdivision had not taken place.  It was a  
speculative profit.  We don't tax people on the value of their stock  
when the price goes up, we tax them on the value of the stock when  
they sell the stock.

By the way, in different situations, the government has restricted  
the property rights of citizens, and it did not justify compensation  
for lost wealth or lost property values.

At one time subdivisions could be "white only", and people bought  
houses based upon that standard.  When the government removed that  
"right" to restrict their neighborhood to "white only", people were  
concerned that integration of their neighborhoods would lower  
property values and take away their wealth.  Property values did  
decline as "white flight" to the suburbs depressed urban home  
prices.  Should the government compensate land owners when laws that  
enforce the 14th Amendment lowered their property values?

When  the government passed the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery,  
slave owners lost real wealth.  Slavery had been legal and had  
remained legal in some Union states.  Slaves were private property.   
Do you wish to argue that the government should have compensated the  
slave owners?  Or can we agree that the ethics of compensation of  
property owners for removal of their property or their property  
rights depends upon the actual situation?
>
> ...
> Frankly, I'm as dismayed that the people of the United States  
> didn't throw the President out of office when it became patently  
> clear he was not telling the truth as you seem to be that the  
> people of Oregon embraced M37. The fact that we have sincere  
> beliefs about what is right doesn't really mean a thing except to  
> us. If we want to see success, we have to work with the real power  
> in our society. In this case, it's the voters.

If a decision is made by majority vote, the decision is more likely  
to be political than moral.

David