Moral Fortitude: Can it exist without Regulations?

The blog entry of "Many see President Obama as off the mark with Oil Speech" has morphed into a philosophical debate of moral fortitude. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines morality as (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/):

1. Descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
   
   1. Some other group, such as religion, or
      
   2. Accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
      
2. Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
   

While I believe in allowing Free Market forces to work unabated by regulations, I do recognize that Free Will and the lack of a common moral fortitude creates challenges for Free Market Forces. A Anonymous commenter mentioned that "Since we all have a different idea of what morality is, those with opposing morals can still carry them with fortitude, regulations are always necessary" and when on to pose the question of "And you mean your morals, correct?" James Rachels, in his book The Elements of Moral Philosophy, attempts to define morality by quoting Socrates, from Plato's Republic, "We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live."

Rachels goes on in the book to discuss Moral Relativism in regards that cultures differ as much as their moral standards do. "Should we eat the bodies of the dead or burn them?" Rachels posed. To which Rachels responds with, "If you were Greek, one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you were a Callatian, the opposite would seem equally certain." Now, does this say in the business world a standard of universal morality cannot be established? Are we not establishing those moral standards via regulations? If that is the case, why not remove the regulations while leaving the morality established by them in place?

Torture: Moving Forward and not backwards

Pandora’s Box has been opened and now the political fallout is to begin. The box in question is torture. Opponents and proponents alike have their definition of torture and how best to be applied. The CIA memo’s released by the Obama Administration set the stage for conversation on torture. Liberals on the far left are screaming for heads while stark conservatives are looking for full disclosure on the success of torture methods used.

Never before in our American history has the current administration gone after the previous administration. FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps and Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus but neither administration following went back to persecute anyone. Why now? President Obama needs to put the topic back on point and follow Gerald Ford’s handling of President Nixon.

The topic of conversation is torture. There is no use arguing the facts as in some cases water boarding worked and other cases it did not. The question is when that fine line of harsh interrogation becomes torture. As the topic drags on, it will continue to weaken the United States and strengthen the resolve of those that wish us harm.

The CIA and other intelligence agencies is now gun shy when it comes to harsh tactics of getting the critical data needed to keep Americans safe. In his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels ponders the question of Moral Theory. Although the conversation in James Rachels book does not touch on torture, much of what is discussed can be applied.

It is through justice and fairness that our society must step forward on the issue of torture. To accomplish a compromise on torture pro and con debate must take place without emotional ties and with rational thought. Using the post 9-11 rhetoric and policies as an example, emotional reaction to torture needs to be divorced from the conversation. I understand that it can be difficult to do but it needs to be done.

America cannot remain safe if a coherent and acceptable level of torture, in war and peace time, is not established. Now, I do not want to see the President or the Director of the CIA standing in front of the podium and lay out the torture levels. Americans need to have faith that methods going forward are “humane”.