- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
You make a good point. Thank you. Perhaps a better word is privilege. Or perhaps it would be better to say that to uphold a sytem that allows the few to trample on the the many, or even anyone to trample on anyone is wrong. And I am not arguing that people should then be burned or whatever for functioning within this system. I am opposed to violence. I just don't think it is right to excuse Mr. Holder because he is acting within (and thus perpetuating) this system.
Perhaps ethics are better understood in the legal sense, as in what a lawyer is obliged to do. So yes maybe it is a question of morality. And right and wrong along with these other ideas are perhaps etherial and hold no concrete meaning, but these actions do have consequences.
Maybe I'll pose a question. Let's say a powerful individual or group (as measured by wealth or political clout) works for social justice. If they are then oppressed and need assistance, can they be said to be powerful in any recognized sense of the word? And I am not saying that power=unethical=evil. I am saying that a corporation that engages people to torture, rape, and murder is evil. Though I would argue that power is in itself corrupting.
