During a skeptics meeting last night I found myself arguing that people in position of power should be held to a higher moral standard than those who are not. The example I gave was that if one is a policeman or a politician then you should be held more accountable, or to a higher moral standard if you were to shoot someone than the other way around. Did anyone have any thoughts on this, perhaps disagree. The two trains of thought I can see are: 1) Universal moral standards - everyone should be held accountable to the same standard regardless of their ability to hold to them/education etc. To not do this would be unfair on those who commit the same crime as someone else, and patronising to those who did not wield the same power as those in positions of positive power disparity. 2) Relative moral standards - depending on your power/education/job etc you may be held to a higher moral standard (eg: policeman/teacher/government official etc) than someone who does not have power over you (eg: musician). Any comments on these two views or something in between welcome. For the record I was in the minority (read: only person) who advocated that different moral standards should exist for different people. Interested in the most ethical stance on this.
Posted on: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:33:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015