The propensity for governments to use scapegoats as a means to keep control/order over its people reveals that they cannot take the blame for their own matters. If the government took the blame for wrongdoings of their system, the people would see their government's control as defective and in need for replacement. Without full acknowledgement of their errors, the governments only want to protect their own jobs and reputations rather than stand up and fix or accept their wrongs. The government cares more for it's own well being before the well being of it's people, which is highly unconstitutional in today's democracies.
Totally agree. Governments/people in political power should man up to their faults and not rely on society to take the blame for their wrong. I also agree that because of their sheltering of their faults, society maintains an unstable government that is seen as effective but is really degrading the community with insufficient power. The unconstitutional behavior of these governments is seen a lot today as well, blaming immigration rates, high taxation, lack of law enforcements and other sanctions of individual states to be the main source of error when the government has ultimate control over this. Political powers need to take a step back and look at their errors before blaming others.
This is a great point and I definitely agree. I think that it is wrong for governments to have such a dependency on their people as scapegoats in order to protect their own selfish needs. I also like how you connect the topic to today's democratic governments, it makes your point even stronger.
I completely agree with your point of view. The government putting thier own well being before the peoples is "highly unconstitutional." I like your point that if the government took responsiblity the public would feel the need to replace them. That's exactly how I viewed it.
I completely agree with you, people would see it as their right to rebel against the established government if it took response for its own actions because of the total lack of morals. However, in order to affectively rule the gvernment needs to do the unethical at times. For example, peacefully changing power was a totally new concept that America set the precedent for and that was far against the British government's morals. An other example is when Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana purchase which was completely outside his constitiutional jurisdiction. Imagen how our modern politics would be if those government officials had not gone against the ethical beliefs of the time. Society determines morals and the goverenment controls society; therefore like in many cases, the government braking rules actually can set new ones.
The propensity for governments to use scapegoats brings forth the idea that the government is not necessarily concerned with catching the true criminals, rather it is concerned with maintaining order in the society over which it rules. The government is not ethical, it just wants to reassure citizens that it has full control over the situation and can bring criminals to justice. While the government may catch the real criminals sometimes, it also uses scapegoats to cover up for the times they don't. In this case, the scapegoat be someone who in fact did not commit the crime but the government punishes anyway because it needs to assert itself and make people believe it is in control. This is to prevent chaos and disorder breaking out among society because society believes the government is not competent enough to rule over them. By using scapegoats, the government is essentially creating an illusion that they have everything under control and that society does not need to worry. In essence, it is trying to protect its reputation instead of protecting society. This elucidates the fact that a government that uses scapegoats is not ethical because it worries about its reputation more than its actual duty which is protecting citizens.
That was a great point Suraj! A family friend once told me that in court, it's not necessarily about finding who is guilty, it's only about coming to a resolution about who is wrong. Obviously, your argument was on a much broader scale than this, but it demonstrates the overall idea. The government has a reputation to keep and if that reputation is compromised, people will stop following laws. That could create chaos so the government is probably trying to look at the broader picture rather than each individual incident.
That's an interesting idea you've presented. It seems that even though the people find it "repulsive" that their government would try to portray this image of perfection, they would not have faith in or respect a government if it came across as anything less than that same image.
You all make wonderful points! Although a government that uses scapegoats may not be ethical, Zoe makes a good point. Society tends to have this expectation for government leaders to be close to perfect, ultimately giving government two options. Be honest, ethical and hope that society appreciates and accepts this, or to find a scapegoat and rely on society to believe them when they point fingers.
I truly agree with what you said. Governments tend to be always so concerned about their reputation. Although they intend to "protect" the people or keep them safe sometimes their actions make them seem unethical. Sometimes governments try to make the problem look less important or big by using a scapegoat to prove, how you mentioned, that they have everything under control when indeed they don't.
I definitely agree with you. Government is mostly concerned with only itself and it almost creates this bubble around the government. Thus, making some of the governments decisions unethical or not morally right.
i agree with what your saying regarding this idea of perfect and that the government won't take the blame fro something. They will subconsciously allow you to be the scapegoat and take the fault for the situation. Many times this avoidance of the blame causes question and ethical divides within society.
The fact that governments feel obliged to use scapegoats to "control" or "order" its people just goes to show how corrupt the system is. They shouldn't feel the need to do this, because the only reason the government does this is because there is something wrong that they're attempting to cover up. If they themselves took the blame for their actions then it would be revealed that their system is corrupt and defective and in need of replacement. In essence, the government uses scapegoats to protect themselves rather than protecting its people. Their very reasoning behind this also reveals how out-of-line the government's morals are. If they truly believed in helping their people then they would spend more time on that than merely attempting to cover up their mistakes with false reasons and scapegoats. The government's immediacy to use scapegoats to blind the people and to control them into seeing something else shows how the government's ethics belong solely to them and not to the people they supposedly watch over.
You make a very valid point. If those in power could really apply the principles they forced onto their subordinates, they could avoid having to place any blame at all. The only reason the government has any cause to scapegoat someone else is because someone in the ranks made a mistake somewhere. If that mistake is fixed rather than blamed on another group, it can be avoided altogether in the future instead of reappearing and causing the whole cycle to repeat again.
I agree to the point where you say how the government's system is quite corrupt. The government basically uses others as scapegoats only to truly protect their own reputation instead of its people. The government needs to accept that mankind cannot be perfect and yes, even individuals in the government can make quite a few mistakes once in a while that may seem intolerable. But they need to accept these mistakes instead of unethically blaming it on the innocent.
The propensity of using scapegoats allows the government to be seen as a "good friend" rather than someone who is against you. People will then realize that the government will take care of these "scapegoats" with the their support. The government's ethnics are sometimes wrong(possibly not having any ethnics) because of how they sometimes blame the innocent as criminals, causing unneeded dilemmas, as a way to show the government is more dominant and fully aware of any situation. The government is thus able to take charge over people by reassuring them that everything is under its control, saving its reputation and outbreaks of chaos within society. Example : Middle Eastern Wars, the government blames Middle Eastern people/government for high oil prices and the inability to share their oil, making citizens of the United States angry at the Middle Easterns rather than their own government.
I totally agree. The government's use of scapegoats makes them seem like a "good friend" and also puts them in a position, while unethical at times, that allows them to justify their actions and make them seem correct by pinpointing dilemmas on some one or something else, even if they have done nothing to attract this blame.
If government is readily willing and able to use others as scapegoats, it means they either have no, or very limited, ethics. Maybe if one could break down government into its components -- a bunch of people who want to keep society whole -- one might find a person who has a strong, unswerving ethical code. However, when the government becomes one body, one unit, one majority opinion, upholding a “greater good” or social order becomes more important than the means by which it is achieved. Scapegoats and loosely constructed ethics create a certain elasticity; if everything goes according to plan, then the government can take full credit, and if something does wrong, then power is conserved in the hands of those who use it best (“best” being a loose term, here). Those who are in power and who have the trust of their people must be willing to abuse their power and break their peoples’ trust in pursuit of a “greater good” and overall order. It’s unethical, but highly effective.
You make some good points. I really agree with the point you make that if everything goes according to plan then the government has no problem taking credit, I also think that as soon as something does go wrong they look for someone to blame (a scapegoat). I also agree that like you said one person alone could have a strong moral/ethical compass but it does't carry through when place in a group that doesnt necessarily feel exactly the same way.
You bring up some very good points. I agree government is more about order rather than ethics. The government is supposed to control a large group, and since they cannot please everyone with morals because "right" and "wrong" are subjective, a loose set of ethics is more efficient in controlling a crowd.
So you're saying that the government uses scapegoats in order to uphold/create society? I can agree with that to the extent that you mean that they, in a way, that when things go wrong they use the scapegoat to keep society together and to have the least amount of chaos possible. And because of that the government has little ethics or morals in what they're doing because of the very fact that they're trying to cover whatever the situation is up. Well, I agree with all of that. I even made similar points in my own post and I think you did a really good job describing that!
You made some really good points. I had never taken time to consider that there are certain individuals with a, "strong, unswerving ethical code," in a corrupt government. I liked how you made the assertion that an unethical government can be effective. I had overlooked that aspect as I examined the government's lack of morals in utilizing scapegoats.
I like your view point on the subject because I had never seen it in this light. I agree with your stamtement about the unethical use of scapegoats in order to maintain society orderd because as I began to analize the purpose for scapegoats within society your asertion was a great point. If the government takes the overall blame for a problem it could cause the social order to crumble and even though their use for scapegoats is unmoral in a way it still allows them to keep order.
The government's propensity of using scapegoats shows their willingness to wrongly blame others as a means of hiding their own mistakes. The government strives to seem in control and infallible, which prompts their desire to use others as scapegoats. The willingness of the government to use scapegoat portrays a lack of ethics that seems to frequently be associated with governments. Thus, the government is more concerned with the consolidating power than accepting responsibility for their mistakes.
I agree with you! However, is it that they're willing to wrongly blame others or is that their only choice when the other option is being the ones who get blamed?
I agree with you Brody but Annissa makes a good point. Maybe it's not only the fact that they are willing to wrongly blame others but that they are only looking out for themselves, thus using scapegoats to prevent them for getting blamed rather than a random civilian.
I also concur with you Brody and governments do seem to try and divert all the attention they can off of them, and it seems that a good portion of the time they divert too much attention off of themselves using scapegoats rather than accepting a fair amount of responsibility and using their powers to correct their mistakes.
I agree, the government would just be trying to cover something up instead of taking the blame. I also agree that most governments don’t have a sense of ethics, and I like how you related that to their need for a portrait of a controlled society. I think an example of what you’re saying would be the French Revolution, where the revolutionaries kept blaming others for the failure of the new government, and this led to the execution of many people.
The government's propensity of using scapegoats to maintain power over its people shows how the government is just trying to appeal to society. The government blames others for failures because it wants to seem flawless to society. If the people saw that their government failed on areas then this would cause immense conflict within the society. Rebellions against the government would start if they saw how issues were their governments fault. The government would show weak ethics because it wouldn't take responsibility for its own actions. Scapegoating wouldn't work in a democracy because if the people saw that the government was trying to pass on their mistakes to others, then the people would see the government as corrupt. The governments ethics are displayed weak because they are more concerned with maintaining order over its people than taking responsibility for its failures.
I agree with your ideas on how governments use scapegoats to seem flawless, however i think all governments use this method, including democratic ones.
I agree with the point you made about the government using scapegoats to divert attention away from themselves and that they do this so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. It seems like scapegoating is a tool used by corrupt governments, and I don't think scapegoating is ever justified unless the scapegoat is actually the source of the problem.
The propensity for governments to use scapegoats as a means to keep control/order over its people show how unethical the government is because they have no guilt in wrongly blaming innocent people and lying to their society in means of covering up their own faults. They are trying to avoid the chaos people would create if they realized that the government was not always capable of catching the real criminals. This weakness is hidden through the governments use of scapegoats to reassure people that they arebeing properly protected. Scapegoats create an illusion that the government has full control over its people when really it is too busy protecting its own reputation.
I agree with you. The government creates this illusion that they are fully in control when in reality they are not. They often use this method when dealing with faults in their political system or disorder in society. They blame the problems on a minority in society and then in some cases set out to eradicate them as the Nazis did with the Jews. It often takes a majority of the population to become disillusioned with the government and then rebel to overthrow their rule.
This is very good and I highly agree with your point. The government displays a lot of weakness in the fact that they can not take responsibility for their actions. It is wrong for governments to try and blame other people in order to seem like a powerful government. This shows how they are lying to the people and how the government is highly corrupt.
The propensity for governments to use scapegoats as a means to keep control/order over its people reveals a lack of ethics at it's core. Scapegoating in and of itself is an inability to take responsibilty for ones own shortcomings. Playing the "blame-game" may be a means by which governments maintain peace and order, but the end result is that the peoples greater good has not been adequately served. For example, during the 2012 campaign we have heard a lot of finger pointing as opposed to taking responsibilty and ownership of results. In the end this becomes a mechanism by which governments retain power rather than accomplish positive results that will benefit society as a whole.
I totally agree with you. I think that scapegoating is just a sign of insecurity and that people should have to suffer the consequences from sothing they did, not putting the blame on someone else. Your reference to the 2012 election is a good one. All they do is accuse each other of actions they think the other did. i believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions.
I completely agree with you Amanda!!! The government uses scapegoats due to it's "inability to take responsibility for [it's] own shortcomings". It places blame on other branches or other parties because it cannot admit fault of its mistakes. It is a stubborn institution that focuses more on the downfall of its opponent than its own success.
I completely agree with your point about how the government's use of scapegoats reveals their lack of responsibility. I also liked how you used a current example of scapegoating such as the 2012 campaigns.
I agree as well. The government use of scapegoats is crucial because it pins the blame on a certain event or person instead of actually recognizing the problems they have created. Also I like how you used the 2012 election as an example. I feel that there is a higher focus on covering up issues and pushing the blame on different groups of people instead of planning out how those issues can be resolved
Governments using scapegoats proves to show that they have no valid explanations for problems arising in society. When they use these to quell the issues that appear in society it shows that the governments ethics are immoral. This is because they are essentially lying to the people to keep their organization in order. Itshows how the governmnet is centered on its own sustainment of power rather than focusing on the greater good for their people which is cheating them out of a prosperous life.
Yep I totally agree with you. The government has to lie in order to sustain their power even if it is at the cost of its people, without their ability to scapegoat the government would fall into the hands of the people and they would lose their power all together. In a way the government has to use a scapegoat every once and a while in order to survive as the central powerhouse of society.
Governments usually have the tendency to use scapegoating as a means to keep control/order over its people in order to aid their unethical approach in making themselves look more favorable and guilt-free to society. This is very unethical in my mind because in order to make themselves seem "guilt-free", they are willing to criminalize and point fingers at groups of innocent individuals just to ultimately cover up for their own wrong doings. This highly regarded during the time of the dreaded Holocaust during WWII when the Nazi government of Germany, led by Hitler, used the Jews as a scapegoat and the blame for all of Germany's problems following their loss in WWI. As shown in this example, governments have always used certain groups as scapegoats rather than taking the more ethical approach of taking the blame and fixing their mistakes to benefit society.
This is true in the sense that if a government uses a group of people as a scapegoat it makes them seem guilt-free. In reality though they are just judging innocent people like you said which will in the end exclude that group from society.
I think you made a really good point here. I like your idea of how governments use scapegoating as a means to keep control over their people, I never thought of that perspective before. I also find it unethical for governments to use scapegoating in order to make themselves look good and guilt-free. Those governments are taking advantage of innocent people and that cannot be tolerated. The example that you provided is a very good example to prove what you were trying to say and I agree with you that governments have always tried to use scapegoats instead of taking the blame and fix their mistakes.
Im on board with how you saying how they blame others not so much so that they may keep order ,but so that the look " guilt-free". They are very conservatives and so want to keep being favorable in order to keep their positions of power. So they will look for a scapegoat to blame.
The government often uses scapegoats to avoid the blame of a shortcoming. Republicans blame democrats and the president blames congress. The government uses scapegoats because it does not want people to believe that it is inadequate to run this country so it comes up with some person, group, or event to blame. The government cares more about staying in power than admitting fault and learning from their mistakes. Which then creates a very hostile political environment in which everyone constantly scrutinizes one another.
I agree. I think that scapegoats came into play because of people in power who were afraid to lose that power, and used another group to save themselves from criticism by their people. If the figureheads of the government weren't so afraid to take the blame and accept their consequences honestly, then maybe the entire system would run much more smoothly.
I think your explanation as to who blames who in the government is excellent, and I agree that many times the government cares more about not being shown as a failure than admitting they are wrong. However, this isn't to say they don't still learn from these mistakes, even if the blame is put upon someone or something else.
I also agree, I think that people in the government use scapegoats as a method of protecting themselves. These scapegoats are utilized when the government makes a mistake, and they need something/ someone to throw the blame on in order to ensure they still have the trust of the people, trust that keeps them in their position of authority. Ultimately, the government is mainly concerned with what is in the best interest of the government, so these people in power were better equipped to handle their errors/ mistakes, our government would function more efficiently.
I agree. The idea that government would rather stay in power than admitting fault and learning from mistakes is actually very ironic. This is because when the normal person does something wrong government are the ones punishing them with no opportunity to learn from their mistakes and also the people get no one to blame whereas the government can freely.
When a government uses a scapegoat, they essentially use that scapegoat as a propaganda method for their cause or as a cover up for their actions. The government does what it can to protect itself rather than its own people. From this we can see just how immoral the ethics of the government are and what little respect it has for its people. As seen in our 2012 presidential debates both Romney and Obama have used the economy, foreign policy, education, etc. as a way to use the other candidate as a scapegoat in order to essentially win the election, or improve their chances of winning. The government has done the same kind of scapegoating in order to retain their power over the people because without their scapegoat to protect their faults they would be left wide open for attack by the people who oppose their views, and they would lose their power they so desperately hunger for.
I really like your idea of how the government uses a scapegoat to try and maintain their power, I think that's spot on. I like that your points tie in with the prior conversation rotating around the government's corruption within itself.
I strongly agree with this idea. I don't think I've ever heard the government blame themselves for something that has happened. They will almost always scapegoat someone or something in whatevery way they can in order to maintain their power. I never realized how much they really did it until you pointed it out using the presidental debate as an example. It really tells a lot about the government when they claim to be "protecting the people" and then turn around and throw them under the bus.
While the government may chose to utilize scapegoating as a means of order or control, the government may honestly believe in that the scapegoat's actions are wrong. The government's actions to blame one group or another - while from an outsider's viewpoint may be considered misdirected or misconducted - often are for the direct benefit of the people, whether or not the people actually agree with the government's decision. To say the government (or all governments, for that matter) only use scapegoats for their personal gain would be a blanket statement not be applicable to all governments - past, present AND future.
This is a good observation! I agree that scapegoating is an effective mean of control, whether it's fair or not. Many individuals overlook the possibility that the original blame may have truth, and also that the actions of the group being targeted were unjust.
I definitley agree with this. I like how you pointed out that the governtments view on scapegoating was for order and control. It is true that the intentions of the government are for the people, they do not use selfish intentions to protect themselves. The governments intentions are good, even though not everyone agrees with it. I agree with everything you said and you did a good job explaining this. Your explantion helped me broaden my knowledge of scapegoats and its connection to government ethics.
I definitely agree with you. I feel that using scapegoats isn't necessarily reflective of no ethics in government. In certain cases, scapegoats may be appropriate, and we can't generalize things because we may have a pessimistic outlook on all governments. Governments have a job to look after the whole of soceity, so order and control are important and require sometimes diffucult decisions. Scapegoating may not seem like a representation of good ethics, but looking at the big picture we may see that it is helpful instead of just harmful.
I do understand the points you are making, but just because a government sees an action as wrong, do they HAVE to use a scapegoat? As a controlling body over people, I believe it is ethical to not have to place the blame on ANYONE, even if the scapegoat is at fault. It is a government's moral and ethical duty to remain impartial to any group or person.
Sorry, my initial post in this forum was for the first question. Here is my correrct post.
Governments’ main objective is to maintain order, and in many cases they disobey common moral ethics in order to maintain this order. By using scapegoats they find people who are disobeying moral values and place the blame on them to set an example of the consequences of what disobeying these values cause despite their own corrupt values.
The propensity for governments to use scapegoats as a means to keep control/order over its people reveals that the government doesn't take responsiblity for the mistakes they have made. If the government didn't use scapegoats and actualy held itself accountable for the wrongs in the system it would show that the they aren't the most fit leaders for this society. The populace would call for change, scaring the government and forcing acknowledgement of misconduct. With no recognization of the failures the government has caused this shows self interest of government alone, rather than the interests of those the serve. The government has only the intention to ensure thier jobs and and position of power. Instead of taking matters into thier own hands and making an effort to repair our society's downfalls allowing the country as a whole to grow. The government is displaying selfish characteristics, putting thier own needs in front of the public's needs. These actions exemplify an unethical government, and breaks the trust our people give to our leaders.
I completely agree with your assertions that governments use scapegoating to cover up for their own mistakes, rather than tending for the needs of the public. I liked how you recognized their intentions of sustaining their jobs and positions of power over the population. This is very unethical, and through this, there is a lack of trust between the people and their leaders.
I TOTALLY agree with your ideas Xiamara. I understand how you would see the government as being unethical. By blaming others for something that is their fault in the first place is wrong and does not express the acceptance of ones faults. Owning up to ones faults allows you grow and better yourself in the future will only lead to better things.
By using scapegoats as a means to control its people, the government completely contradicts itself. If a government supposedly preaches acceptance and honesty, putting all the blame on someone else will only make the government seem weak and untrustworthy. A government needs to be strong enough to admit its mistakes and learn to grow from them in order to properly thrive; otherwise they seem scared and unable to adapt to a constantly changing society. In The Scarlet Letter (won't let me underline), the local government (which is run by the church) is completely hypocritical in how it forces its people to live by a very strict set of morals, yet punishes them in very embarrassing and sometimes inhumane ways for even the smallest mistakes.
Good job!I agree with you on everything,I like how you mentioned The Scarlet Letter as an example. Also,with what you were talkind about " putting all the blame on someone else will only make the government seem weak and trustworthy," I believe that the government does this to itself so they won't have to deal with criticism and admit that they have a weak government.
You make some really good points Kelly! I totally agree that governments should own up to their faults and work to improve upon them instead of resorting to a scapegoat in hopes of maintaining a strong facade. Like you mentioned, the government needs to be able to live up to their own ideals instead up pointing the finger in order to maintain a good reputation.
Government uses scapegoats because just all people they do not wish to be seen as weak or vulnerable but on a much larger scale that could cost money, influence, or lives of their people. So governments use this to cover up their more sinister actions since unlike people governments have to make decisions that could cost lives either way so they don’t get to always have very strict ethics. My view is that governments should keep high morals but if they have to make hard choices that cost lives they should own up to it unless it could cause outrage or instability.
The propensity for governments to use scapegoats as a means to keep control/order over its people reveals that they cannot take the blame for their own matters. If the government took the blame for wrongdoings of their system, the people would see their government's control as defective and in need for replacement. Without full acknowledgement of their errors, the governments only want to protect their own jobs and reputations rather than stand up and fix or accept their wrongs. The government cares more for it's own well being before the well being of it's people, which is highly unconstitutional in today's democracies.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. Governments/people in political power should man up to their faults and not rely on society to take the blame for their wrong. I also agree that because of their sheltering of their faults, society maintains an unstable government that is seen as effective but is really degrading the community with insufficient power. The unconstitutional behavior of these governments is seen a lot today as well, blaming immigration rates, high taxation, lack of law enforcements and other sanctions of individual states to be the main source of error when the government has ultimate control over this. Political powers need to take a step back and look at their errors before blaming others.
DeleteThis is a great point and I definitely agree. I think that it is wrong for governments to have such a dependency on their people as scapegoats in order to protect their own selfish needs. I also like how you connect the topic to today's democratic governments, it makes your point even stronger.
DeleteI completely agree with your point of view. The government putting thier own well being before the peoples is "highly unconstitutional." I like your point that if the government took responsiblity the public would feel the need to replace them. That's exactly how I viewed it.
DeleteI completely agree with you, people would see it as their right to rebel against the established government if it took response for its own actions because of the total lack of morals. However, in order to affectively rule the gvernment needs to do the unethical at times. For example, peacefully changing power was a totally new concept that America set the precedent for and that was far against the British government's morals. An other example is when Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana purchase which was completely outside his constitiutional jurisdiction. Imagen how our modern politics would be if those government officials had not gone against the ethical beliefs of the time. Society determines morals and the goverenment controls society; therefore like in many cases, the government braking rules actually can set new ones.
DeleteThe propensity for governments to use scapegoats brings forth the idea that the government is not necessarily concerned with catching the true criminals, rather it is concerned with maintaining order in the society over which it rules. The government is not ethical, it just wants to reassure citizens that it has full control over the situation and can bring criminals to justice. While the government may catch the real criminals sometimes, it also uses scapegoats to cover up for the times they don't. In this case, the scapegoat be someone who in fact did not commit the crime but the government punishes anyway because it needs to assert itself and make people believe it is in control. This is to prevent chaos and disorder breaking out among society because society believes the government is not competent enough to rule over them. By using scapegoats, the government is essentially creating an illusion that they have everything under control and that society does not need to worry. In essence, it is trying to protect its reputation instead of protecting society. This elucidates the fact that a government that uses scapegoats is not ethical because it worries about its reputation more than its actual duty which is protecting citizens.
ReplyDeleteThat was a great point Suraj! A family friend once told me that in court, it's not necessarily about finding who is guilty, it's only about coming to a resolution about who is wrong. Obviously, your argument was on a much broader scale than this, but it demonstrates the overall idea. The government has a reputation to keep and if that reputation is compromised, people will stop following laws. That could create chaos so the government is probably trying to look at the broader picture rather than each individual incident.
DeleteThat's an interesting idea you've presented. It seems that even though the people find it "repulsive" that their government would try to portray this image of perfection, they would not have faith in or respect a government if it came across as anything less than that same image.
DeleteYou all make wonderful points! Although a government that uses scapegoats may not be ethical, Zoe makes a good point. Society tends to have this expectation for government leaders to be close to perfect, ultimately giving government two options. Be honest, ethical and hope that society appreciates and accepts this, or to find a scapegoat and rely on society to believe them when they point fingers.
DeleteI truly agree with what you said. Governments tend to be always so concerned about their reputation. Although they intend to "protect" the people or keep them safe sometimes their actions make them seem unethical. Sometimes governments try to make the problem look less important or big by using a scapegoat to prove, how you mentioned, that they have everything under control when indeed they don't.
DeleteI definitely agree with you. Government is mostly concerned with only itself and it almost creates this bubble around the government. Thus, making some of the governments decisions unethical or not morally right.
Deletei agree with what your saying regarding this idea of perfect and that the government won't take the blame fro something. They will subconsciously allow you to be the scapegoat and take the fault for the situation. Many times this avoidance of the blame causes question and ethical divides within society.
DeleteThe fact that governments feel obliged to use scapegoats to "control" or "order" its people just goes to show how corrupt the system is. They shouldn't feel the need to do this, because the only reason the government does this is because there is something wrong that they're attempting to cover up. If they themselves took the blame for their actions then it would be revealed that their system is corrupt and defective and in need of replacement. In essence, the government uses scapegoats to protect themselves rather than protecting its people. Their very reasoning behind this also reveals how out-of-line the government's morals are. If they truly believed in helping their people then they would spend more time on that than merely attempting to cover up their mistakes with false reasons and scapegoats. The government's immediacy to use scapegoats to blind the people and to control them into seeing something else shows how the government's ethics belong solely to them and not to the people they supposedly watch over.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very valid point. If those in power could really apply the principles they forced onto their subordinates, they could avoid having to place any blame at all. The only reason the government has any cause to scapegoat someone else is because someone in the ranks made a mistake somewhere. If that mistake is fixed rather than blamed on another group, it can be avoided altogether in the future instead of reappearing and causing the whole cycle to repeat again.
DeleteI agree to the point where you say how the government's system is quite corrupt. The government basically uses others as scapegoats only to truly protect their own reputation instead of its people. The government needs to accept that mankind cannot be perfect and yes, even individuals in the government can make quite a few mistakes once in a while that may seem intolerable. But they need to accept these mistakes instead of unethically blaming it on the innocent.
DeleteI agree. The government's use of scapegoats to 'cover up' problems and to sort of 'censor' the people's views shows their immorality.
DeleteThe propensity of using scapegoats allows the government to be seen as a "good friend" rather than someone who is against you. People will then realize that the government will take care of these "scapegoats" with the their support. The government's ethnics are sometimes wrong(possibly not having any ethnics) because of how they sometimes blame the innocent as criminals, causing unneeded dilemmas, as a way to show the government is more dominant and fully aware of any situation. The government is thus able to take charge over people by reassuring them that everything is under its control, saving its reputation and outbreaks of chaos within society. Example : Middle Eastern Wars, the government blames Middle Eastern people/government for high oil prices and the inability to share their oil, making citizens of the United States angry at the Middle Easterns rather than their own government.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. The government's use of scapegoats makes them seem like a "good friend" and also puts them in a position, while unethical at times, that allows them to justify their actions and make them seem correct by pinpointing dilemmas on some one or something else, even if they have done nothing to attract this blame.
DeleteIf government is readily willing and able to use others as scapegoats, it means they either have no, or very limited, ethics. Maybe if one could break down government into its components -- a bunch of people who want to keep society whole -- one might find a person who has a strong, unswerving ethical code. However, when the government becomes one body, one unit, one majority opinion, upholding a “greater good” or social order becomes more important than the means by which it is achieved. Scapegoats and loosely constructed ethics create a certain elasticity; if everything goes according to plan, then the government can take full credit, and if something does wrong, then power is conserved in the hands of those who use it best (“best” being a loose term, here). Those who are in power and who have the trust of their people must be willing to abuse their power and break their peoples’ trust in pursuit of a “greater good” and overall order. It’s unethical, but highly effective.
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points. I really agree with the point you make that if everything goes according to plan then the government has no problem taking credit, I also think that as soon as something does go wrong they look for someone to blame (a scapegoat). I also agree that like you said one person alone could have a strong moral/ethical compass but it does't carry through when place in a group that doesnt necessarily feel exactly the same way.
DeleteYou bring up some very good points. I agree government is more about order rather than ethics. The government is supposed to control a large group, and since they cannot please everyone with morals because "right" and "wrong" are subjective, a loose set of ethics is more efficient in controlling a crowd.
DeleteSo you're saying that the government uses scapegoats in order to uphold/create society? I can agree with that to the extent that you mean that they, in a way, that when things go wrong they use the scapegoat to keep society together and to have the least amount of chaos possible. And because of that the government has little ethics or morals in what they're doing because of the very fact that they're trying to cover whatever the situation is up. Well, I agree with all of that. I even made similar points in my own post and I think you did a really good job describing that!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou made some really good points. I had never taken time to consider that there are certain individuals with a, "strong, unswerving ethical code," in a corrupt government. I liked how you made the assertion that an unethical government can be effective. I had overlooked that aspect as I examined the government's lack of morals in utilizing scapegoats.
DeleteI like your view point on the subject because I had never seen it in this light. I agree with your stamtement about the unethical use of scapegoats in order to maintain society orderd because as I began to analize the purpose for scapegoats within society your asertion was a great point. If the government takes the overall blame for a problem it could cause the social order to crumble and even though their use for scapegoats is unmoral in a way it still allows them to keep order.
DeleteThe government's propensity of using scapegoats shows their willingness to wrongly blame others as a means of hiding their own mistakes. The government strives to seem in control and infallible, which prompts their desire to use others as scapegoats. The willingness of the government to use scapegoat portrays a lack of ethics that seems to frequently be associated with governments. Thus, the government is more concerned with the consolidating power than accepting responsibility for their mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you! However, is it that they're willing to wrongly blame others or is that their only choice when the other option is being the ones who get blamed?
DeleteI agree with you Brody but Annissa makes a good point. Maybe it's not only the fact that they are willing to wrongly blame others but that they are only looking out for themselves, thus using scapegoats to prevent them for getting blamed rather than a random civilian.
DeleteI also concur with you Brody and governments do seem to try and divert all the attention they can off of them, and it seems that a good portion of the time they divert too much attention off of themselves using scapegoats rather than accepting a fair amount of responsibility and using their powers to correct their mistakes.
DeleteI agree, the government would just be trying to cover something up instead of taking the blame. I also agree that most governments don’t have a sense of ethics, and I like how you related that to their need for a portrait of a controlled society. I think an example of what you’re saying would be the French Revolution, where the revolutionaries kept blaming others for the failure of the new government, and this led to the execution of many people.
DeleteThe government's propensity of using scapegoats to maintain power over its people shows how the government is just trying to appeal to society. The government blames others for failures because it wants to seem flawless to society. If the people saw that their government failed on areas then this would cause immense conflict within the society. Rebellions against the government would start if they saw how issues were their governments fault. The government would show weak ethics because it wouldn't take responsibility for its own actions. Scapegoating wouldn't work in a democracy because if the people saw that the government was trying to pass on their mistakes to others, then the people would see the government as corrupt. The governments ethics are displayed weak because they are more concerned with maintaining order over its people than taking responsibility for its failures.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your ideas on how governments use scapegoats to seem flawless, however i think all governments use this method, including democratic ones.
DeleteI agree with the point you made about the government using scapegoats to divert attention away from themselves and that they do this so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. It seems like scapegoating is a tool used by corrupt governments, and I don't think scapegoating is ever justified unless the scapegoat is actually the source of the problem.
DeleteThe propensity for governments to use scapegoats as a means to keep control/order over its people show how unethical the government is because they have no guilt in wrongly blaming innocent people and lying to their society in means of covering up their own faults. They are trying to avoid the chaos people would create if they realized that the government was not always capable of catching the real criminals. This weakness is hidden through the governments use of scapegoats to reassure people that they arebeing properly protected. Scapegoats create an illusion that the government has full control over its people when really it is too busy protecting its own reputation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. The government creates this illusion that they are fully in control when in reality they are not. They often use this method when dealing with faults in their political system or disorder in society. They blame the problems on a minority in society and then in some cases set out to eradicate them as the Nazis did with the Jews. It often takes a majority of the population to become disillusioned with the government and then rebel to overthrow their rule.
DeleteThis is very good and I highly agree with your point. The government displays a lot of weakness in the fact that they can not take responsibility for their actions. It is wrong for governments to try and blame other people in order to seem like a powerful government. This shows how they are lying to the people and how the government is highly corrupt.
DeleteThe propensity for governments to use scapegoats as a means to keep control/order over its people reveals a lack of ethics at it's core. Scapegoating in and of itself is an inability to take responsibilty for ones own shortcomings. Playing the "blame-game" may be a means by which governments maintain peace and order, but the end result is that the peoples greater good has not been adequately served. For example, during the 2012 campaign we have heard a lot of finger pointing as opposed to taking responsibilty and ownership of results. In the end this becomes a mechanism by which governments retain power rather than accomplish positive results that will benefit society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. I think that scapegoating is just a sign of insecurity and that people should have to suffer the consequences from sothing they did, not putting the blame on someone else. Your reference to the 2012 election is a good one. All they do is accuse each other of actions they think the other did. i believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions.
DeleteI completely agree with you Amanda!!! The government uses scapegoats due to it's "inability to take responsibility for [it's] own shortcomings". It places blame on other branches or other parties because it cannot admit fault of its mistakes. It is a stubborn institution that focuses more on the downfall of its opponent than its own success.
DeleteI completely agree with your point about how the government's use of scapegoats reveals their lack of responsibility. I also liked how you used a current example of scapegoating such as the 2012 campaigns.
DeleteI agree as well. The government use of scapegoats is crucial because it pins the blame on a certain event or person instead of actually recognizing the problems they have created. Also I like how you used the 2012 election as an example. I feel that there is a higher focus on covering up issues and pushing the blame on different groups of people instead of planning out how those issues can be resolved
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGovernments using scapegoats proves to show that they have no valid explanations for problems arising in society. When they use these to quell the issues that appear in society it shows that the governments ethics are immoral. This is because they are essentially lying to the people to keep their organization in order. Itshows how the governmnet is centered on its own sustainment of power rather than focusing on the greater good for their people which is cheating them out of a prosperous life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYep I totally agree with you. The government has to lie in order to sustain their power even if it is at the cost of its people, without their ability to scapegoat the government would fall into the hands of the people and they would lose their power all together. In a way the government has to use a scapegoat every once and a while in order to survive as the central powerhouse of society.
DeleteGovernments usually have the tendency to use scapegoating as a means to keep control/order over its people in order to aid their unethical approach in making themselves look more favorable and guilt-free to society. This is very unethical in my mind because in order to make themselves seem "guilt-free", they are willing to criminalize and point fingers at groups of innocent individuals just to ultimately cover up for their own wrong doings. This highly regarded during the time of the dreaded Holocaust during WWII when the Nazi government of Germany, led by Hitler, used the Jews as a scapegoat and the blame for all of Germany's problems following their loss in WWI. As shown in this example, governments have always used certain groups as scapegoats rather than taking the more ethical approach of taking the blame and fixing their mistakes to benefit society.
ReplyDeleteThis is true in the sense that if a government uses a group of people as a scapegoat it makes them seem guilt-free. In reality though they are just judging innocent people like you said which will in the end exclude that group from society.
DeleteI think you made a really good point here. I like your idea of how governments use scapegoating as a means to keep control over their people, I never thought of that perspective before. I also find it unethical for governments to use scapegoating in order to make themselves look good and guilt-free. Those governments are taking advantage of innocent people and that cannot be tolerated. The example that you provided is a very good example to prove what you were trying to say and I agree with you that governments have always tried to use scapegoats instead of taking the blame and fix their mistakes.
DeleteIm on board with how you saying how they blame others not so much so that they may keep order ,but so that the look " guilt-free". They are very conservatives and so want to keep being favorable in order to keep their positions of power. So they will look for a scapegoat to blame.
DeleteThe government often uses scapegoats to avoid the blame of a shortcoming. Republicans blame democrats and the president blames congress. The government uses scapegoats because it does not want people to believe that it is inadequate to run this country so it comes up with some person, group, or event to blame. The government cares more about staying in power than admitting fault and learning from their mistakes. Which then creates a very hostile political environment in which everyone constantly scrutinizes one another.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that scapegoats came into play because of people in power who were afraid to lose that power, and used another group to save themselves from criticism by their people. If the figureheads of the government weren't so afraid to take the blame and accept their consequences honestly, then maybe the entire system would run much more smoothly.
DeleteI think your explanation as to who blames who in the government is excellent, and I agree that many times the government cares more about not being shown as a failure than admitting they are wrong. However, this isn't to say they don't still learn from these mistakes, even if the blame is put upon someone or something else.
DeleteI also agree, I think that people in the government use scapegoats as a method of protecting themselves. These scapegoats are utilized when the government makes a mistake, and they need something/ someone to throw the blame on in order to ensure they still have the trust of the people, trust that keeps them in their position of authority. Ultimately, the government is mainly concerned with what is in the best interest of the government, so these people in power were better equipped to handle their errors/ mistakes, our government would function more efficiently.
DeleteI agree. The idea that government would rather stay in power than admitting fault and learning from mistakes is actually very ironic. This is because when the normal person does something wrong government are the ones punishing them with no opportunity to learn from their mistakes and also the people get no one to blame whereas the government can freely.
DeleteWhen a government uses a scapegoat, they essentially use that scapegoat as a propaganda method for their cause or as a cover up for their actions. The government does what it can to protect itself rather than its own people. From this we can see just how immoral the ethics of the government are and what little respect it has for its people. As seen in our 2012 presidential debates both Romney and Obama have used the economy, foreign policy, education, etc. as a way to use the other candidate as a scapegoat in order to essentially win the election, or improve their chances of winning. The government has done the same kind of scapegoating in order to retain their power over the people because without their scapegoat to protect their faults they would be left wide open for attack by the people who oppose their views, and they would lose their power they so desperately hunger for.
ReplyDeleteI really like your idea of how the government uses a scapegoat to try and maintain their power, I think that's spot on. I like that your points tie in with the prior conversation rotating around the government's corruption within itself.
DeleteI strongly agree with this idea. I don't think I've ever heard the government blame themselves for something that has happened. They will almost always scapegoat someone or something in whatevery way they can in order to maintain their power. I never realized how much they really did it until you pointed it out using the presidental debate as an example. It really tells a lot about the government when they claim to be "protecting the people" and then turn around and throw them under the bus.
DeleteWhile the government may chose to utilize scapegoating as a means of order or control, the government may honestly believe in that the scapegoat's actions are wrong. The government's actions to blame one group or another - while from an outsider's viewpoint may be considered misdirected or misconducted - often are for the direct benefit of the people, whether or not the people actually agree with the government's decision. To say the government (or all governments, for that matter) only use scapegoats for their personal gain would be a blanket statement not be applicable to all governments - past, present AND future.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good observation! I agree that scapegoating is an effective mean of control, whether it's fair or not. Many individuals overlook the possibility that the original blame may have truth, and also that the actions of the group being targeted were unjust.
DeleteI definitley agree with this. I like how you pointed out that the governtments view on scapegoating was for order and control. It is true that the intentions of the government are for the people, they do not use selfish intentions to protect themselves. The governments intentions are good, even though not everyone agrees with it. I agree with everything you said and you did a good job explaining this. Your explantion helped me broaden my knowledge of scapegoats and its connection to government ethics.
DeleteI definitely agree with you. I feel that using scapegoats isn't necessarily reflective of no ethics in government. In certain cases, scapegoats may be appropriate, and we can't generalize things because we may have a pessimistic outlook on all governments. Governments have a job to look after the whole of soceity, so order and control are important and require sometimes diffucult decisions. Scapegoating may not seem like a representation of good ethics, but looking at the big picture we may see that it is helpful instead of just harmful.
DeleteI do understand the points you are making, but just because a government sees an action as wrong, do they HAVE to use a scapegoat? As a controlling body over people, I believe it is ethical to not have to place the blame on ANYONE, even if the scapegoat is at fault. It is a government's moral and ethical duty to remain impartial to any group or person.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, my initial post in this forum was for the first question. Here is my correrct post.
ReplyDeleteGovernments’ main objective is to maintain order, and in many cases they disobey common moral ethics in order to maintain this order. By using scapegoats they find people who are disobeying moral values and place the blame on them to set an example of the consequences of what disobeying these values cause despite their own corrupt values.
Travis Rogers
The propensity for governments to use scapegoats as a means to keep control/order over its people reveals that the government doesn't take responsiblity for the mistakes they have made. If the government didn't use scapegoats and actualy held itself accountable for the wrongs in the system it would show that the they aren't the most fit leaders for this society. The populace would call for change, scaring the government and forcing acknowledgement of misconduct. With no recognization of the failures the government has caused this shows self interest of government alone, rather than the interests of those the serve. The government has only the intention to ensure thier jobs and and position of power. Instead of taking matters into thier own hands and making an effort to repair our society's downfalls allowing the country as a whole to grow. The government is displaying selfish characteristics, putting thier own needs in front of the public's needs. These actions exemplify an unethical government, and breaks the trust our people give to our leaders.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your assertions that governments use scapegoating to cover up for their own mistakes, rather than tending for the needs of the public. I liked how you recognized their intentions of sustaining their jobs and positions of power over the population. This is very unethical, and through this, there is a lack of trust between the people and their leaders.
DeleteI TOTALLY agree with your ideas Xiamara. I understand how you would see the government as being unethical. By blaming others for something that is their fault in the first place is wrong and does not express the acceptance of ones faults. Owning up to ones faults allows you grow and better yourself in the future will only lead to better things.
DeleteBy using scapegoats as a means to control its people, the government completely contradicts itself. If a government supposedly preaches acceptance and honesty, putting all the blame on someone else will only make the government seem weak and untrustworthy. A government needs to be strong enough to admit its mistakes and learn to grow from them in order to properly thrive; otherwise they seem scared and unable to adapt to a constantly changing society. In The Scarlet Letter (won't let me underline), the local government (which is run by the church) is completely hypocritical in how it forces its people to live by a very strict set of morals, yet punishes them in very embarrassing and sometimes inhumane ways for even the smallest mistakes.
ReplyDeleteGood job!I agree with you on everything,I like how you mentioned The Scarlet Letter as an example. Also,with what you were talkind about " putting all the blame on someone else will only make the government seem weak and trustworthy," I believe that the government does this to itself so they won't have to deal with criticism and admit that they have a weak government.
DeleteYou make some really good points Kelly! I totally agree that governments should own up to their faults and work to improve upon them instead of resorting to a scapegoat in hopes of maintaining a strong facade. Like you mentioned, the government needs to be able to live up to their own ideals instead up pointing the finger in order to maintain a good reputation.
DeleteGovernment uses scapegoats because just all people they do not wish to be seen as weak or vulnerable but on a much larger scale that could cost money, influence, or lives of their people. So governments use this to cover up their more sinister actions since unlike people governments have to make decisions that could cost lives either way so they don’t get to always have very strict ethics. My view is that governments should keep high morals but if they have to make hard choices that cost lives they should own up to it unless it could cause outrage or instability.
ReplyDelete