Morality can guide votes

  • Follow Letters

The fall campaign season, like the school term, seems to start earlier every year. Before the various campaigns get more intense, I’d like to offer a suggestion that may help cut through all the rhetoric to help decide who you want to represent us either here in Georgia or in Washington, D.C.

By the time we are old enough to vote, we have developed a moral code by which we try to live. It may have started with our religion – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. – or from the examples of our parents, grandparents, teachers and other significant adults in our lives.

What all moral codes have in common is pretty basic – help when you can; try not to do any harm; treat others like you want to be treated; try to be fair to others and yourself; pay special attention to the vulnerable; and respect others as fellow humans of intrinsic value.

Note that our moral code is about people. Despite what the U.S. Supreme Court says, businesses are not people. However, businesses can help or hurt people, so we certainly have to decide how a given policy will affect a business’ ability to provide jobs, goods and services to people.

Voting is a moral issue because the outcome affects real people. Doesn’t it make sense to explicitly compare the candidates’ policies to our moral standards? Who does a given policy help or harm? Is the proposal fair, particularly to the less powerful? Are we giving too much weight to our own interests, to the detriment of others? Does the proposal allow businesses to increase their profits at the expense of their employees or the public?

There are clear differences among the candidates in the morality of their stands.

Comments (19) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
billcass
806
Points
billcass 08/27/14 - 06:15 am
5
1
Morality?

It is difficult to take morality lessons from an individual who supports a party that believes it is morally acceptable to murder babies in the womb.

hoptoad
13913
Points
hoptoad 08/27/14 - 08:50 am
6
0
It's difficult for the

It's difficult for the average person to determine whether a business increases their profits at the expense of their employees or the public. Many people, even most employees of a certain business, do not understand how a business operates and the bottom line.

The political ads stretch and skew the truth about our candidates' involvement in businesses. Romney, Dick Cheney, Mr. Perdue and Rick Allen - all Republicans. For years after Cheney had removed himself from his former corporation and had no involvement in running it, the left still hammered him for every wrong move that business made. Now the media is parading low level employees who probably know squat about why their mill was closed or Mr. Perdue's function/position at the mill. And Rick Allen is now responsible for businesses being shut down. All these candidates supposedly did it single handedly and walked away with all the money.

Why didn't this LE discuss these claims and explain the whys and what for so the average person will know how to assess these attack ads. Your LE asked the question, but never gave the needed information to assist in making the decision about a candidate's business morality? All you left us with are those attack ads rattling around in our heads.

It's obvious by the way the votes go that many people don't research or they go to a source that's one-sided, usually the side of the political party of which they belong. So they still don't get the truth.

hoptoad
13913
Points
hoptoad 08/27/14 - 06:27 am
6
0
And businesses are not

And businesses are not people? Hello, the morality of a business depends on the morality of the PEOPLE who run it and work for it. A business is how the people who are employed there present themselves to the public they deal with. Businesses may have to prepare a different type of tax form, but without the right people running that business, that business doesn't succeed for long.

A business is a "person" with all the people working there being the brain, heart, liver, stomach, and even the soul!

Bodhisattva
6466
Points
Bodhisattva 08/27/14 - 07:08 am
1
8
"For years after Cheney had
Unpublished

"For years after Cheney had removed himself from his former corporation and had no involvement in running it, the left still hammered him for every wrong move that business made."
You, of course mean, after he said, ""I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years" in 2003, after giving them the no-bid contract in Iraq, yet was still receving paychecks from them of $205,298 in 2001, $262,392 in 2002, $278,437 in 2003, and $294,852 in 2004, and not mentioning the 433,333 Halliburton stock options he still held. The Congressional Research Service determined that holding stock options while in office does consitute having a financial interest. Imagine that.

hoptoad
13913
Points
hoptoad 08/27/14 - 07:42 am
9
1
Is that like when Obama

Is that like when Obama accused Romney of having overseas investments, but neglected to mention that he also had overseas investments?

And let's see --- um, is it also like when Michelle O gave the obamacare contract to an out-of-country technology corporation run by her personal friend? Which screwed it up royally!

deestafford
28721
Points
deestafford 08/27/14 - 07:42 am
9
1
Shoot, let's face it....

Shoot, let's face it. If knowledgeable people voted for candidates based on morality, the Democrats would be able to meet in the bed of a pickup with the tailgate up.

Bodhisattva
6466
Points
Bodhisattva 08/27/14 - 07:43 am
1
7
Cheney also invoked Executive
Unpublished

Cheney also invoked Executive Priviledge claiming the office of the VEEP was part of the Executive Branch after his secret Energy Task Force meetings with the oil and gas industry (and major donors) and used the same argument when he ignored a Congressional Subpoena over giving McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics 2 years to pay back $1.3 billion they were given on the cancelled A-12. He then claimed that he didn't have to submit records to the National Archives because the Office of the VEEP ISN"T PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Now why would we pick on poor old Dick? Came up with an energy policy that was nothing but oil and was all secret and had his and Bush's buddy "Kenny Boy" Lay of Enron. Just a bunch of oil guys figuring out how to make a few more trillion at the expense of the rest of us. Then we get lied into Iraq, a war that was going to "pay for itself"? "Documents turned over in The Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”" Hmmmm. Why would we pick on Dick?

hoptoad
13913
Points
hoptoad 08/27/14 - 07:46 am
3
1
Dee, and probably drown trying to

Dee, and probably drown trying to put the tail gate down to get out if they drove off a bridge.

deestafford
28721
Points
deestafford 08/27/14 - 07:54 am
9
1
Let me explain this canard of the "no bid'' contract...

Let me explain this canard of the "no bid" contract the left continually slobbers with every time Cheney or Halliburton comes up.

The military in its planning for wars in general with none identified knows that there are certain things going to be required immediately upon the initiation of hostiles. The short time frame requires that the actions and equipment must be provided well before contract can go through the normal process which takes months.

To do this the military puts out information to companies who can provide the equipment or services needed at a drop of a hat upon the initiation of hostilities. Companies respond with their capabilities in relation to the request. The military then selects the companies based on their abilities to provide the requested services/equipment.

As far as Halliburton was concerned, there is no company in the world who could provide the volume and quality of services and equipment required no matter how much time was available.

Oh, by the way, the no-bid contract that they got that was implemented for Iraq? It was let under the Clinton administration.

Bodhisattva
6466
Points
Bodhisattva 08/27/14 - 08:04 am
1
10
Lay off the chain emails, they're not reliable
Unpublished

And no, a Nigerian prince doesn't have millions he needs you to get into the country for him.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-federal/

Romney has money funneled through the Caymans using shell companies to dodge taxes and has complete control over his investments. Obama's "foreign investments" are part of the Illinois pension fund. He has zero control over where the funds are invested. Just like I have zero control over where my pension fund is invested. Part of it could be in a company in Timbuktu. Might as well tell the whole truth instead of trying to "pull a Romney" and try to make it sound like they're on the same level.

Bodhisattva
6466
Points
Bodhisattva 08/27/14 - 08:09 am
1
7
WOW! They got the contract
Unpublished

WOW! They got the contract for the Iraq War that started on 3/20/2003 before 1/19/2001. That took some forethought.

justthefacts
22731
Points
justthefacts 08/27/14 - 08:15 am
4
0
Obama and Cheney must be bestest buddies

"KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said." May 31st, 2011.

deestafford
28721
Points
deestafford 08/27/14 - 09:41 am
5
1
Bod, I'll type this real slooooowwww....

Bod, I'll type this real sloooowwww so it's very clear to you. The contract was not specifically for the Iraq war. The military says to the companies that may have the capability to provide services or equipment,

"Folks, when we go to war anywhere in the world there are certain things we are going to need in a hurry. Here is the list. Look it over and give us your capabilities to meet these needs and we'll go from there. Of course, they maybe some modifications once we have identified a theater of operations."

Now, I can't make it much clearer than that. It's called contingency planning. Something which the left does a poor job of because they are late to realize the reality of a situation until sometimes it's too late.

deestafford
28721
Points
deestafford 08/27/14 - 09:42 am
4
1
Also, keep in mind there are....

Also, keep in mind there are some things that are done only by one company and there are no others available to bid.

hoptoad
13913
Points
hoptoad 08/27/14 - 10:16 am
4
1
"Also, keep in mind there are

"Also, keep in mind there are some things that are done only by one company and there are no others available to bid."

Such as the case with Haliburton getting the contract. But like someone said, facts get in the way of libs talking points some times.

Darby
26945
Points
Darby 08/27/14 - 11:39 am
4
0
"Note that our moral code is about people.

Despite what the U.S. Supreme Court says, businesses are not people."

.
And in one breath, the writer dismisses the millions of people engaged in operating small businesses, and family run enterprises throughout the nation.

People who struggle each and every day to survive against a growing, grasping government, just to feed their families and pay their bill.

Nice!

Darby
26945
Points
Darby 08/27/14 - 11:50 am
4
1
Pardon me...

for interpreting Mr. Reese's letter as nothing more than a objection to the court ruling on Hobby Lobby.

Darby
26945
Points
Darby 08/27/14 - 12:10 pm
4
1
And then there's Bod...

Always quick to assume that because a law allows any kind of "loophole" that helps an individual or corporation make a profit or even stay in business, then said individual or business is exercising their legal rights is "unpatriotic", "uncaring" and "greedy".

After all, the only reason government allows a business to exist is to create jobs and provide money to the federal treasury.

Some folks never pause to reflect and realize that business can exist without government (particularly BIG, POWERFUL, GRASPING government) but the government bureaucracy wouldn't last fifteen minutes without business.

Bod and his/her liberal brethren see civilian commerce as a filthy but necessary evil that the elite need not not embrace but they must allow to exist.

Still, so many liberals/socialists/progressives just keep trying to kill the golden goose.

corgimom
34177
Points
corgimom 08/27/14 - 01:56 pm
4
2
Bod, it's called "deferred

Bod, it's called "deferred compensation" and it is perfectly legal. It is often done with senior executives.

And no, he didn't have a financial interest in Halliburton. That would exist if he owned part of the company.

What he said was absolutely true, and why anybody would bash him for that makes no sense.

corgimom
34177
Points
corgimom 08/27/14 - 01:59 pm
1
5
What the LTE writer said is

What the LTE writer said is true.

The whole concept of corporations is that they are stand-alone business entities, and the owner is not personally liable in any way, but receives a salary and/or dividends.

But that has been breached by the Hobby Lobby ruling, and I think that by the time that it's over, Hobby Lobby is going to be sorry that they pursued this. Because now, they are personally involved.

Be careful what you wish for.

corgimom
34177
Points
corgimom 08/27/14 - 02:00 pm
1
5
The morality of a business is

The morality of a business is not necessarily that of the people that work for it.

A corporation has a board of directors, and they are the ones that set policies.

historylover
11255
Points
historylover 08/27/14 - 02:01 pm
1
3
Agreed

100% Corgimom.

cush1944
9763
Points
cush1944 08/27/14 - 05:15 pm
3
1
"But that has been breached

"But that has been breached by the Hobby Lobby ruling, and I think that by the time that it's over, Hobby Lobby is going to be sorry that they pursued this."
corigmom, most likely you are correct. The left in the federal gov't will go after them anyway they can. They will use the EPA, IRS and justice department. The Hobby Lobby stood by their beliefs and be damned with the lefties/Marxists.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Partnerships needed in cyber sectors, NSA director says

Adm. Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, said the nation's security rests on breaking down bariers between private and government sectors specializing in cyber defense. ...
Search Augusta jobs