Can what is ethically and morally be right be mutually exclusive to the greater good? (morals)

[Marleinie]

We all know Governments do things that go from ethically and morally questionable to ethically and morally just wrong. But can they be mutually exclusive? For example, we all know the FBI, CIA etc. have been involved in some very questionable stuff. Especially after 9/11. But do you think even so, if it DOES result in at least one American being killed it is okay? Or do you think that even it meant more Americans dying or some other bad action befalling, one should still adhere to what is ethically and morally the right thing?

Much like during the Cold War, with the McCarthy Trials for example which involved lots of spying on what were thought to be Communist/Russian spies, would it have been better to have strictly upheld ethical/moral beliefs even if it did mean Communist/Russian spies would have been capable of doing whatever they wanted to do, or was it worth violating ethics/morals if we could catch Communist/Russian spies?

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by Marleinie

We all know Governments do things that go from ethically and morally questionable to ethically and morally just wrong. But can they be mutually exclusive?

Sometimes the distinction is blurred by not knowing all the facts of the situation...

Originally Posted by Marleinie

For example, we all know the FBI, CIA etc. have been involved in some very questionable stuff. Especially after 9/11. But do you think even so, if it DOES result in at least one American being killed it is okay?

Or do you think that even it meant more Americans dying or some other bad action befalling, one should still adhere to what is ethically and morally the right thing?

Any person's death that could be reasonably, without extraordinary physical or mental effort, avoided without greater harm elsewhere is not morally acceptable. Deaths linked to the actions of those with enormous power or riches acting to get even more power or riches, are also morally unacceptable, when they result from the wanton disregard of the well-being of the people.

Originally Posted by Marleinie

Much like during the Cold War, with the McCarthy Trials for example which involved lots of spying on what were thought to be Communist/Russian spies, would it have been better to have strictly upheld ethical/moral beliefs even if it did mean Communist/Russian spies would have been capable of doing whatever they wanted to do, or was it worth violating ethics/morals if we could catch Communist/Russian spies?

Fill me in on the historical facts here, I was born in 1987. It might be sort of like the trolley problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[2nd trick op]

For openers, the OP appears to be unable to distinguish between "Communist" (an ideological or philosophical term) and Russian (a nationality); there is a huge difference.

[ukrkoz]

Unfortunately, it is also very typical as that is a standard propaganda: Russian Communist. Bears dancing in the streets. Drunken Russia.

[ukrkoz]

Originally Posted by Marleinie

would it have been better to have strictly upheld ethical/m oral beliefs

OP, will you be more specific on this, please? Which ones?

[Marleinie]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

For openers, the OP appears to be unable to distinguish between "Communist" (an ideological or philosophical term) and Russian (a nationality); there is a huge difference.

I was talking about during the Cold War where if you were Russian you were a Communist.