How far would you go, and how many extraneous scenarios of ethical concern would you tolerate, before you released helpful information to others that you are supposed keep on a tight lockdown due to 1) mandates of your employer/supervisor 2) personal vendettas 3) legal orders 4) devotion to the "almighty dollar"- (not funny) ?
As it is, I personally know of people who will not communicate probably ever, when they have information that would release others from a felony conviction on their records. People with felonies often still have to put up with taking part in programs, probation, paying fees and restitution, ongoing court dates- in summary they are in slavery to a system that is not really nice. So the people knowing the helpful information do not communicate with those probably wrongfully convicted, or their attorneys or investigators. I am not kidding. I know of people who are currently acting this way.
If the possibility that the legal system can make mistakes is news to you, then you do not watch headlines, I guess. Convictions are reversed on a regular basis and those stories make their way into newspapers. You would have to keep current on news, though, to know that. Certainly, there are various legal remedies and motions available to convicts, especially those still behind bars- including but not limited to writ of habeas corpus. If newly discovered evidence is found relevant to a person's innocence, a petition for writ of habeas corpus may be done based on that.
In 2009 I first read the fictional novel The Wind-up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami. Most of the book was palatable to me, but I did not understand why the author drafted such a violent scene in book 1 chapter 13 "Lieutenant Mamiya's Long Story: Part II (pages 151-172). Basically it is 1937 (WWII) in Outer Mongolia and the character Yamamoto is tied up and skinned alive with shears by Mongolians on orders from the Soviets, because he would not simply hand over the information that they wanted. He underwent a horrible torture and death at their hands when they were simply asking for certain specific information, a letter they had actually had on hand. He could easily have described it or explained it to them, but instead remained stone-cold silent as they killed him methodically. The Soviet and Mongolian perpetrators actually described to him what they were going to do before they did it in specific detail, and Yamamoto still withheld the information. I was shocked as hell and disgusted as a read the entire passage in its original literary form. I have provided the synopsis here.
chapter synopsis- wind-up bird chronicle
The problem is, though, I know people with that strange of a mentality. When the character Yamamoto says "just shoot me if they start to get to us" (rough quote), " and that would be better for me"....I know people who have made offhand remarks that actually strange- said them to whole groups of people even. The book has to be looked at again and considered, I guess, because through literary interpretation there we have a construct or example to draw upon to demonstrate what could possibly happen in scenarios where information lockdown protocols go to a level of extremism which is uncalled for. Nor would I ever personally do what the Soviets and Mongols did there in the narrative- that's disgusting.
How many ethical concerns will people be aware of before they simply pass over information they know? Yamamoto's level of commitment to withholding that particular information set was a level of duty and hatred of his enemies probably which was a level of extremism that I do not myself know.
If you ask my opinion people have to start considering ethics/morals as well in their personal decision making. It would be one thing to simply give way to agreeing to being the sole property of the U.S. Government and State Government with no personal volition. Or to carry out a personal vendetta so seriously that you must also reject sound Christian doctrine and go to hell. With enough ethical concerns burdening a scenario, employees have to consider simply telling their superiors that what they communicate in their personal time is their own business and of top of that they cannot be penalized for speech expressed in their free time. Especially with the type of aforementioned conviction concerns bearing down on situations. It is legally the case of the matter that employers shouldn't be penalizing employees for their speech in their time off the clock.
[just by the way, my Christian worldview doesn't allow for extremism. Incidentally, I heard a sermon on the radio around that same time in my life where the pastor emphasized Luke 9:51-56 and Luke 22:49-51/Matthew 26:50-52 as being relevant to his valid arguments against extremism. I have to actually agree with that pastor].
As it is, I personally know of people who will not communicate probably ever, when they have information that would release others from a felony conviction on their records. People with felonies often still have to put up with taking part in programs, probation, paying fees and restitution, ongoing court dates- in summary they are in slavery to a system that is not really nice. So the people knowing the helpful information do not communicate with those probably wrongfully convicted, or their attorneys or investigators. I am not kidding. I know of people who are currently acting this way.
If the possibility that the legal system can make mistakes is news to you, then you do not watch headlines, I guess. Convictions are reversed on a regular basis and those stories make their way into newspapers. You would have to keep current on news, though, to know that. Certainly, there are various legal remedies and motions available to convicts, especially those still behind bars- including but not limited to writ of habeas corpus. If newly discovered evidence is found relevant to a person's innocence, a petition for writ of habeas corpus may be done based on that.
In 2009 I first read the fictional novel The Wind-up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami. Most of the book was palatable to me, but I did not understand why the author drafted such a violent scene in book 1 chapter 13 "Lieutenant Mamiya's Long Story: Part II (pages 151-172). Basically it is 1937 (WWII) in Outer Mongolia and the character Yamamoto is tied up and skinned alive with shears by Mongolians on orders from the Soviets, because he would not simply hand over the information that they wanted. He underwent a horrible torture and death at their hands when they were simply asking for certain specific information, a letter they had actually had on hand. He could easily have described it or explained it to them, but instead remained stone-cold silent as they killed him methodically. The Soviet and Mongolian perpetrators actually described to him what they were going to do before they did it in specific detail, and Yamamoto still withheld the information. I was shocked as hell and disgusted as a read the entire passage in its original literary form. I have provided the synopsis here.
chapter synopsis- wind-up bird chronicle
The problem is, though, I know people with that strange of a mentality. When the character Yamamoto says "just shoot me if they start to get to us" (rough quote), " and that would be better for me"....I know people who have made offhand remarks that actually strange- said them to whole groups of people even. The book has to be looked at again and considered, I guess, because through literary interpretation there we have a construct or example to draw upon to demonstrate what could possibly happen in scenarios where information lockdown protocols go to a level of extremism which is uncalled for. Nor would I ever personally do what the Soviets and Mongols did there in the narrative- that's disgusting.
How many ethical concerns will people be aware of before they simply pass over information they know? Yamamoto's level of commitment to withholding that particular information set was a level of duty and hatred of his enemies probably which was a level of extremism that I do not myself know.
If you ask my opinion people have to start considering ethics/morals as well in their personal decision making. It would be one thing to simply give way to agreeing to being the sole property of the U.S. Government and State Government with no personal volition. Or to carry out a personal vendetta so seriously that you must also reject sound Christian doctrine and go to hell. With enough ethical concerns burdening a scenario, employees have to consider simply telling their superiors that what they communicate in their personal time is their own business and of top of that they cannot be penalized for speech expressed in their free time. Especially with the type of aforementioned conviction concerns bearing down on situations. It is legally the case of the matter that employers shouldn't be penalizing employees for their speech in their time off the clock.
[just by the way, my Christian worldview doesn't allow for extremism. Incidentally, I heard a sermon on the radio around that same time in my life where the pastor emphasized Luke 9:51-56 and Luke 22:49-51/Matthew 26:50-52 as being relevant to his valid arguments against extremism. I have to actually agree with that pastor].
Comments
Post a Comment