Comments on: Satyam chairman Raju’s crime and the Times’ reaction http://fortruth.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/satyam-chairman-rajus-crime-and-the-times-reaction/ Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:10:36 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: K. M. http://fortruth.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/satyam-chairman-rajus-crime-and-the-times-reaction/#comment-397 K. M. Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:19:35 +0000 http://fortruth.wordpress.com/?p=222#comment-397 I dont agree fully. The sympathy that they would show towards criminals who claim to seek some "greater good" is proof of moral paralysis. It is precisely that sympathy which allows them to support criminal actions by the government. Note that in many of the editorials supporting the recent bail-outs, the editors did acknowledge a moral hazard. The moral paralysis is what prevents them from taking or advocating any principled action in any direction. <i>they will sympathize with the criminal but will want to punish him nevertheless - the law is supreme.</i> True, but that is a legal stand, not a moral one. It is the moral stand which is crucial. I dont agree fully. The sympathy that they would show towards criminals who claim to seek some “greater good” is proof of moral paralysis. It is precisely that sympathy which allows them to support criminal actions by the government. Note that in many of the editorials supporting the recent bail-outs, the editors did acknowledge a moral hazard. The moral paralysis is what prevents them from taking or advocating any principled action in any direction.

they will sympathize with the criminal but will want to punish him nevertheless – the law is supreme.
True, but that is a legal stand, not a moral one. It is the moral stand which is crucial.

]]> By: Aristotle The Geek http://fortruth.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/satyam-chairman-rajus-crime-and-the-times-reaction/#comment-395 Aristotle The Geek Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:16:40 +0000 http://fortruth.wordpress.com/?p=222#comment-395 <em>"if Satyam were to shut down etc, etc…, the Times would find it difficult to take a unequivocal moral stand."</em> The Times, and most people in general, seem to have some clear cut ideas of pragmatism - some basic rules they follow, though they probably don't know about it. When it comes to government, the fudging is not seen as criminal because it is the government which is working for the "greater good". When it comes to individuals, and other "for profit" entities, all fraud will be condemned and they will demand that the law take its own course. But if something like you suggest (fraud to save jobs or something) happens, they will sympathize with the criminal but will want to punish him nevertheless - the law is supreme. Your motives were right but the method you adopted were wrong, they will say. When it comes to "non profit" entities, these are treated like the government is - tax breaks, cheap land etc etc. Anyone looking in would find this absurd. But for the frogs in the well, this is commonplace. And the same applies to taking a moral stand at the three levels - when it comes to the government and "non profit" entities including various collectives (groups formed on the basis of religion, caste, parochial interests etc) - the "greater good principle" rules - sacrifice the smaller group to the larger one; the only exception here is PC, which, as they see it, is a support for the "weak" - the definition for which differs from group to group. The individual and "for profit" entities - these will always be looked down upon as a necessary evil. This system only breaks down when two equal-sized groups that are both fighting for a "greater good" collide. Till then, the Times won't have a problem editorializing. Actually, even then, it would suggest some kind of compromise. It will never allow itself to be paralyzed, preferring a downward spiral instead. “if Satyam were to shut down etc, etc…, the Times would find it difficult to take a unequivocal moral stand.”
The Times, and most people in general, seem to have some clear cut ideas of pragmatism – some basic rules they follow, though they probably don’t know about it.

When it comes to government, the fudging is not seen as criminal because it is the government which is working for the “greater good”. When it comes to individuals, and other “for profit” entities, all fraud will be condemned and they will demand that the law take its own course. But if something like you suggest (fraud to save jobs or something) happens, they will sympathize with the criminal but will want to punish him nevertheless – the law is supreme. Your motives were right but the method you adopted were wrong, they will say. When it comes to “non profit” entities, these are treated like the government is – tax breaks, cheap land etc etc. Anyone looking in would find this absurd. But for the frogs in the well, this is commonplace.

And the same applies to taking a moral stand at the three levels – when it comes to the government and “non profit” entities including various collectives (groups formed on the basis of religion, caste, parochial interests etc) – the “greater good principle” rules – sacrifice the smaller group to the larger one; the only exception here is PC, which, as they see it, is a support for the “weak” – the definition for which differs from group to group. The individual and “for profit” entities – these will always be looked down upon as a necessary evil.

This system only breaks down when two equal-sized groups that are both fighting for a “greater good” collide. Till then, the Times won’t have a problem editorializing. Actually, even then, it would suggest some kind of compromise. It will never allow itself to be paralyzed, preferring a downward spiral instead.

]]>