Ethics Question

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Offering favoritism for those willing to pay is corruption. It shifts the burden of war and the risk of death from the wealthy to the poor.

It's easy to not consider this as immoral, since it appears to help some people directly while not directly harming anyone. But for every rich person you unfairly protect, a poor person or person without connections is forced to take their place. In effect, your influence is sending that person to war, even if you don't who they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
It can't be that simple. If you don't charge at all then your objection fails and theoretically you could charge in a way that means you make the same decisions as if you didn't charge.

So lets suppose its ethically okay if you don't charge, you make the decisions on compassionate grounds and then charge an amount (possibly zero) that each is easily able to afford.

Still a real toughie imo.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]How much does the justness of the war matter? Suppose it's generally considered to be a just war, and almost everyone that gets drafted given the choice to back out would choose to go and fight. Very few people want out.

What if it's generally considered to by an unjust war, and almost everyone wants out.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Offering favoritism for those willing to pay is corruption.

[/ QUOTE ] You never turn down anyone, sometimes you use your influence without any payment. Would you say this is moral corruption?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't. There's a difference between ethical corruption and moral corruption.

[TTChamp]

A key consideration here is whether or not the man believes the war to be just and necesary.

If the man believes that the war is just and necesary then doing anything to affect which citizens fight in the war is wrong IMO.

If the man believes the war to be unjust then he should use his influence to attempt to end the war. In addition he should use his influence to limit the number of people drafted.

Given that every person he gets out of the draft will be replaced with a person that otherwise wouldn't have been drafred, accepting payment to get specific individuals out of the draft is wrong. His actions simply shift the burden from the people who can pay him to the people who can't, and IMO the burden of war is one that should be shared equally among citizens.

[Shadowrun]

Not only would i do it, i would do iT foR free.

[madnak]

But that means you wouldn't do it, eh? Accept money for it?

[Shadowrun]

i would do it, and i would do it for free for anyone.

[FortunaMaximus]

lol.

Make no distinctions, accept no bribes, send everybody to war. In the end, the side's probability of winning the war goes up, and because its forces will have larger numbers, they also have the probability of fewer losses overall and on ratio.

If this individual sends nobody to war, the chances of the side winning gets hampered, and the likelihood of forces being massacred or routed, and on ratio will be far higher.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
lol.

Make no distinctions, accept no bribes, send everybody to war. In the end, the side's probability of winning the war goes up, and because its forces will have larger numbers, they also have the probability of fewer losses overall and on ratio.

If this individual sends nobody to war, the chances of the side winning gets hampered, and the likelihood of forces being massacred or routed, and on ratio will be far higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off if there is no none going to war than no dies.
Second i would focus on technology over man power (example Isreal)

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol.

Make no distinctions, accept no bribes, send everybody to war. In the end, the side's probability of winning the war goes up, and because its forces will have larger numbers, they also have the probability of fewer losses overall and on ratio.

If this individual sends nobody to war, the chances of the side winning gets hampered, and the likelihood of forces being massacred or routed, and on ratio will be far higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off if there is no none going to war than no dies.
Second i would focus on technology over man power (example Isreal)

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel Defense Forces

'fraid I'm gonna have to disagree with your example there. If you won't go to the war, they'll just take you over. Or you'll get fired and they won't find a bleeding heart for the position.

[Shadowrun]

im on the website what article should i be reading?