Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 1 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 2 |
Debates: | 0 |
It is in our nature to be self-aggrandizing, though not necessarily individually. More often it manifests itself at the group level, in this case the national level. It is right that we should think ourselves to be the best, so long as we always strive to be better. To apologize is to be self-debasing and makes on seem weak to outsiders. If we were to be apologetic, other nations would simply relish in the opportunity to blame their misfortunes on us.
This goes back to the old ethical quandary of whether moral obligation applies in the positive as well as negative sense. Most generally agree with the negative sense, e.g. don't kill Bob. The positive is, however, less agreed upon. Do we have a moral obligation to stop Joe from killing Bob. Most would say yes, if its reasonably plausible to do so.
This becomes more difficult, however, when you consider notions like the train track dilemma. Imagine you are standing at a railroad switch. On its current course the train is going to hit 5 people. Most would say we have an obligation to flip the switch, however, what if the alternate route had one man on the tracks? Should we flip it then?
This latter scenario can be akin to the question at hand. By intervening or reporting their is a good chance that it could entail negative consequences on the part of the bystander (what if the criminal decides to "eliminate" the witness?) Positive moral obligation is a quite nebulous territory.
|