Intro to Public Affairs/Parallel Bloody Hands
Parallel bloody hands
Ethics comes after honor since an individual who lacks honor lacks moral compass and there is no way such individuals can turn to be ethical (Shafritz, Russell and Borick 200). In any case, honor goes to the heart of public affairs. It is from the olden days when only those individuals regarded as honorable could be relied on and trusted with public affairs. Donald Rumsfeld and Robert S. McNamara present obvious icons of government officials undergoing ethical dilemma. The problem in the parallel bloody hands case is the issue of loyalty and ethics. The main question is whether the officials of the government must be loyal towards citizens or administration (Shafritz, Russell and Borick 195). The parallel bloody hands case finds answers to whether loyalty towards the President, Mayor, or Governor must be lesser or greater than the loyalty towards the overall interests of the citizens. For instance, from the case, McNamara was a secretary of defense during President Kennedy’s tenure and later under President Johnson. McNamara, as the defense secretary, served as the principal administrator of the Vietnam’s futile war that lead to deaths of some Americans and several Vietnamese. According to McNamara’s knowledge, he knew that the combat was not winnable. Regardless of this knowledge, McNamara became silent and went on pouring innocent blood in the name of remaining loyal to the president. It was evident that administrative secretaries would do anything to remain loyal to the president and in turn not act to the interests of citizens. The case shows how public officials would be acquainted of facts within their tasks but can only confess about such facts after leaving their duties. The main stipulation in the case is that, McNamara agreed with antiwar belief protestors that the Vietnam War was futile and un-winnable but commanded its continuation. This is an implication that the loyalty of McNamara to the citizen’s interests and
Ethics comes after honor since an individual who lacks honor lacks moral compass and there is no way such individuals can turn to be ethical (Shafritz, Russell and Borick 200). In any case, honor goes to the heart of public affairs. It is from the olden days when only those individuals regarded as honorable could be relied on and trusted with public affairs. Donald Rumsfeld and Robert S. McNamara present obvious icons of government officials undergoing ethical dilemma. The problem in the parallel bloody hands case is the issue of loyalty and ethics. The main question is whether the officials of the government must be loyal towards citizens or administration (Shafritz, Russell and Borick 195). The parallel bloody hands case finds answers to whether loyalty towards the President, Mayor, or Governor must be lesser or greater than the loyalty towards the overall interests of the citizens. For instance, from the case, McNamara was a secretary of defense during President Kennedy’s tenure and later under President Johnson. McNamara, as the defense secretary, served as the principal administrator of the Vietnam’s futile war that lead to deaths of some Americans and several Vietnamese. According to McNamara’s knowledge, he knew that the combat was not winnable. Regardless of this knowledge, McNamara became silent and went on pouring innocent blood in the name of remaining loyal to the president. It was evident that administrative secretaries would do anything to remain loyal to the president and in turn not act to the interests of citizens. The case shows how public officials would be acquainted of facts within their tasks but can only confess about such facts after leaving their duties. The main stipulation in the case is that, McNamara agreed with antiwar belief protestors that the Vietnam War was futile and un-winnable but commanded its continuation. This is an implication that the loyalty of McNamara to the citizen’s interests and