TaN: Preemptive is wrong; anticipative is acceptable – what is the difference? Today, especially in the case of the USA and the global war on terrorism (the latest of which is the “kill list”), preemption is getting to be the norm.
The problem with preemption is there is the presumption of guilt or bad faith. Preemption is employed as a means of ensuring security and safety. However, preemption may be used either as a defensive or as an offensive weapon.
Defensively, it is used to prevent a potential threat from being carried out by preparing or marshaling resources in the event of an attack – like learning defensive and self-protective techniques or training and conditioning for an encounter.
Offensively, there are: passive and active strategies. A passive strategy is when some sort of a quarantine is employed – e.g., when a combatant is immobilzed or otherwise disabled from taking any positive action or, in the case of nations, to establish positions or allies surrounding and effectively isolating the country.
In an active strategy, it is used to cause damage or harm to a perceived threat in order destroy its capability to become a threat – much like the predominant strategic policy of the United States of America in dealing with “uncooperative” states, by bringing the war to or conducting offensive operations in the territory of the threat.
Although defensive preemption is more socially acceptable (especially among the public), it does not make preemption any less wrong because both types presume evil in others. Instead of thinking others are good, preemption presupposes that others are bad and, therefore, we must ensure our safety and security by taking action ahead of them. It may be said that this is an example of a perversion of the application of the Golden Rule, Do unto others…before they do unto you.
In preemption, instead of assuming that others are inherently good, others are assumed to be bad, and this reflects on ourselves for how we think of others is how we think of ourselves. We do not think of another as a thief – who would not hesitate to steal from others – because it is what we are, what we will do if we were in their position.
TaN: Business itself is neither good nor bad; it is the people that determine goodness and badness. However, the product or the service provided is a significant determinant factor in determining the ethics of a business.
If the business is dependent on good things happening to people, then there is incentive for the business to be ethical in its dealings. But, if the business is dependent on bad things happening to people, then there is a great tendency to be unethical – to the point of fraud or making false claims in order to stay in business. This should be The CAVEAT to all (conscientious) consumers and serve as a guide in our purchases – whether we want to continue supporting companies where unethical practices are a daily occurrence and management is not doing anything to address them or switch our purchases to more ethical companies.
We have to include corporations that may be engaged in unethical practices but have dealings with businesses that do. In today’s global village, political boundaries can no longer be used as an excuse to evade ensuring that business practices are ethical.
Business today is so entangled and intertwined that it is difficult to find corporations that are ethical…but it is “difficult”, not impossible. This is where B Corporations come in. Find out more about them and be among the “pioneers” in your neck of the woods.