The Free Tibet Campaign said in a statement that Google was "endorsing censorship and repression," and that its "Don't be evil" ethic was "in smithereens".
And to get that far, many in the West feel Google has had to compromise its "do-no-evil" ethics by agreeing to some of the government's censorship rules.
But Ronald Steel's review of my book "The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror" (July 25) is such a travesty that I feel I owe it to your readers to point out one essential error.
In THE LESSER EVIL: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (Princeton University, $16.95), Michael Ignatieff assesses America's war on terror and tries to determine what security measures a society can tolerate and still consider itself virtuous.
[This is part two of a three-part series on: Sin, Evil & Ethics. Make sure you read part one here.
This is part 1 of 3 of a series I am doing on the human condition: evil, sin and ethics.
Since, according to Plato (and Socrates), virtue and happiness require knowledge, e.g., knowledge of goods and evils, Plato's ethics is inseparable from his epistemology.
On her view, Utilitarianism commits one to endorsing evil deeds, and Kantian ethics, with its notion of 'self-legislation' is just incoherent.
Comarnescu proposed that Bogdan-Pitești and the equally controversial Arghezi were better understood through the logic of Hinduism ("the ancient Indian ethics"): "good and evil are not opposed, but collocated, combined, in a state of confusion".
Ever since the semi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics was created two years ago to vet allegations against lawmakers, cynics wondered how soon it would fall into the find-no-evil track record of the House ethics committee it serves.
