I think on some things we are in agreement with
however; I still think terrorism is the wrong word
to tack to all this. I think you maybe right
though the definition isn't as important as maybe
the criterion for deciphering who is who in the game
of corporate ethics.
See my problem here is terrorists to me means-- all who
cause these damages are terrorists, we both agree not
all coorporations are units of evil and causing these damages. And we both agree some do wrong. I feel like the definition is a catch 22 because it is not all. We both agree it is unethical for certain corportations to do their business as usual. And this leaves me the second problem that how do we decipher; how do
we know the coorporations which do harm and do good.
And if some are in the middle. With no choice but
to have trade offs, how do we account for them.
States have the same problem, some things they do
are good, and some things like beating innocent
protesters over the head is unethical. But the issue is
even more to me how do we measure the whole kit and
kaboodle.Is there someway we can ever have just good, is that what we are trying to achieve? Ultimately, are we
looking for everything, a clean environment, wealthy
economy, are these standards possible? Or is humanity
looking for the less ideal?
any takers out there?
Have a good one,
Lisa D,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|