Monday, November 28, 2011

An unanswered ethical question



Just as I went to air today on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network, CNN proclaimed "Breaking News."

The big news? Yet another woman has come forward to say she had a sexual relationship with Herman Cain.

This one says she had a long-term affair with the GOP presidential hopeful. So, whether this falls into the same category of the previous allegations - that Cain inappropriately and against the will of women over which he held control or sway - remains to be seen. It prompted a discussion about the reporting of ethical and moral concerns. And whether the media are highlighting the wrong issues.

Riley from the UK called to argue that the two issues are completely different.

But Cassandra, also from the UK, argued that going to war presents a moral dilemma. She believes the news media would be better serving the public concentrating on that rather than on Cain's alleged sexual escapades.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

indigent? Or indignant?

Quite frankly, I don't care about the personal lives of politicians or candidates unless it would be perceived as an influence on HIS/HER moral character.

As to the allegations thrown at Mr. Cain, the more disturbing was not the affair, he IS a man and it DOES happen more often than we know about. The more disturbing allegation to me was the alleged way he treated the women from the earlier allegations. Using his power to demean them. (allegedly) It made me wonder what else would he do with power? How far would he go before damaging the nation?

No matter which party, the sex lives don't bother me at all, nor does their religion. As long as the sex is between two consenting adults, it really is none of my business nor would it become a national threat of some kind.

Abuse of power IS however, an issue.

And you are right, as a rule we give much more thought (and press) to sexual allegations than we do about the morality of going to war.

I wish it were up to me, we would never go to war anywhere UNLESS we were attacked by a NATION, as in Pearl Harbor.

peace-lover said...

Recently, the Kuala Lumpur International War Crimes Tribunal Hearing Issued a verdict: Former Prime Minister Blair and Former President Bush Guilty of War Crimes.

source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27827

I'm way beyond even considering news about politicians and their affairs. I'm seeking action on the findings such as was done by the Kuala Lumpur tribunal even though it may never happen. And by the looks of it those crimes and similar crimes by the American leadership/government will continue and be hailed by Americans and others as victories over terrorism.

Perhaps, in years to come, there may be other historians like Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States) and Thaddeus Russell (A Renegade History of the United States) that will place the burden of guilt upon a government, its leaders and its people who fostered, funded, turned a blind eye to all that has transpired with the wars we see transpiring under the guise of a war on terrorism.

Anonymous said...

Re: Cain

According to wikipedia, "Cain serves as an associate minister Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta, which he joined at the age of 10.[27] The church is part of the National Baptist Convention, USA[28] and is "a bastion of liberal activism", where the church's senior pastor, Rev. Cameron M. Alexander, reportedly does not share Cain's political philosophy.[29][30]"

So if Herman Cain is presenting himself as a religious guy - an associate minister, no less - then the question of adultery does raise valid questions about his character and the face he presents.

Re: War

I think that there have been people questioning the morality of going to war. However, we Americans tend to suck it up when it becomes fait accompli and rally around the flag. Should there have been a broader discussion before going to war? Certainly - especially in regards to the Iraq war.

To answer Gary's question I would pose the following questions: Does one discussion preclude the other's existence? Are questions about Cain's character not relevant in deciding whom to lead us in the future including possible war or prevention of it?

Or, it could be as simple as we love a sex scandal that doesn't really make us think very deeply ...where it is fairly easy to make a moral call. Whereas with war - it really isn't that simple.

If I were a betting girl - this would be my bet.

Anonymous said...

I like waiting until all the facts are in before a decision. This almost mirrors a lot of things Clinton did. Just see how things develop. He keeps denying it all. If he is lying, then he should not be considered. And I had been supporting him. If guilty he should have been up front and it probably would have gone away.

Anonymous said...

We have been socially engineered to accept war and it has been going on since the failure of the army to capture hearts and souls over the Vietnam war. The marketers got smart and sold Gi Joe dolls and then spent money developing war games. We have no moral compass when it comes to war anymore, we herald it as something to value . We no longer question why we go to war because we have been programmed to accept it.
A person’s private life should not be entered into unless it reflects a problem that relates to their ability to do the job. In Cain’s case if he has the stamina to keep up with a multimillion dollar business , a mistress ,a wife and several supposed sidelines maybe he has some negotiating skills and fitness for office that is not apparent at first look.
The counter balance to this of course is his apparent failing memory which enables him to deny all of this and his inability to keep basic knowledge together like what did Obama think of the Libyan events.