Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Naofumi" data-source="post: 47494" data-attributes="member: 39">3.14 THE DESTRUCTION OF CHARACTERBut this system, by forcing the individual to pass judgment on questionsfor which he is not competent, gradually debases his moral character. Nobodywill have the courage to say, &quot;Gentlemen, I&#039;m afraid we know nothing aboutwhat we are talking about. I for one have no competency in the matter at all.&quot;(Besides, if such a declaration were made, it wouldn&#039;t change matters verymuch; such outspoken honesty would not be understood. The person whomade the declaration would be deemed an honorable ass who shouldn&#039;t beallowed to spoil the game.) Those who know human nature know that nobodylikes to be considered a fool among his associates; and in certain circles,honesty is taken as a measure of stupidity.Thus even a man who was originally honest, once he finds himselfelected to parliament, may eventually be forced to acquiesce in a line ofconduct that is base in itself, and which amounts to a betrayal of the publictrust. This destroys every real sense of honor that might occasionally riseup in the conscience of one person or another. Finally, the otherwise uprightdeputy will succeed in persuading himself that he is by no means the worstof the lot, and that by playing along, he may prevent something worse fromhappening.An objection may be raised here. It may be said that, of course, theindividual member may not have a knowledge of what&#039;s required foraddressing this or that question. But in such a case, the party sets up specialcommittees of experts who have more than the required knowledge fordealing with the questions before them.At first glance, that argument seems sound. But then another questionarises: namely, why are 500 persons elected if only a few have the wisdomthat is required to deal with the more important problems?Yes-this is the worm in the apple.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Naofumi, post: 47494, member: 39"] 3.14 THE DESTRUCTION OF CHARACTER But this system, by forcing the individual to pass judgment on questions for which he is not competent, gradually debases his moral character. Nobody will have the courage to say, "Gentlemen, I'm afraid we know nothing about what we are talking about. I for one have no competency in the matter at all." (Besides, if such a declaration were made, it wouldn't change matters very much; such outspoken honesty would not be understood. The person who made the declaration would be deemed an honorable ass who shouldn't be allowed to spoil the game.) Those who know human nature know that nobody likes to be considered a fool among his associates; and in certain circles, honesty is taken as a measure of stupidity. Thus even a man who was originally honest, once he finds himself elected to parliament, may eventually be forced to acquiesce in a line of conduct that is base in itself, and which amounts to a betrayal of the public trust. This destroys every real sense of honor that might occasionally rise up in the conscience of one person or another. Finally, the otherwise upright deputy will succeed in persuading himself that he is by no means the worst of the lot, and that by playing along, he may prevent something worse from happening. An objection may be raised here. It may be said that, of course, the individual member may not have a knowledge of what's required for addressing this or that question. But in such a case, the party sets up special committees of experts who have more than the required knowledge for dealing with the questions before them. At first glance, that argument seems sound. But then another question arises: namely, why are 500 persons elected if only a few have the wisdom that is required to deal with the more important problems? Yes-this is the worm in the apple. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread