Quote from: Anon136 on December 09, 2013, 10:49:21 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 09, 2013, 10:39:33 PM

Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts. In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...

without moral standards you have no criteria by which to judge what is and is not effective. should a government protect people from harm? if so than arnt you making the claim that people shouldnt be harmed? if so than why shouldnt people be harmed?

Please could you give more cogent reasons why you think that without moral standards we can't assess the efficiency or performance of the state?

People shouldn't be harmed not because it is immoral to harm them (I talk on behalf of the state here), but because this could render state less efficient in terms of some objective metrics. In short, the powers that be are interested that the governed wouldn't be harmed. It just happens that these things coincide here (though not accidentally) and this coincidence is often used to say that at least some moral principles are not alien to state. This is false