We the innocent, led by the unknown, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful!
We have done so much with so little, so we are now qualified to do anything with nothing!
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
A person that has broken every moral rule in pursuit of his personal vendettas questions Clive Lloyd’s decision to head Cricket IMC
Clive Lloyd is a Caribbean icon. Of course, he is human and can err. But surely, if his activities are to be questioned, it must be on the basis of some rational criteria. Yesterday the Freddie Kissoon actually had the gall to question the moral basis of Lloyds’s decision to head the IMC to straighten Guyana’s cricket administration. Yes; the man who has broken every moral rule in the book in pursuit of his personal vendettas announced he would teach Lloyd what “moral obligation in philosophy means”. His gripe with Lloyd is that he cannot understand the moral basis of Lloyd’s choice, given that the IMC was established by a ‘dictatorial’ government. Now, it could be that Lloyd might just not share Kissoon’s opinion that the government is ‘dictatorial’. There is then no moral dilemma to be surmounted! But Kissoon alone, of course, is judge, jury and executioner of the ‘moral imperative’ in Guyana. The fascist! But let us say that Kissoon is right (Yeah, swallow hard, and let’s proceed). Is there no moral basis for cooperating with a dictatorship? What about the moral standard of “consequentialism”? Consequentialists hold that choices — acts and/or intentions — are to be morally assessed solely by the states of affairs they bring about. Lloyd could very well tell Kissoon that he believes the IMC will restore order to Guyana’s cricket and the greater number of people will benefit – the Guyanese cricketing public. This satisfies the ‘utilitarian’ variant of consequentialism to boot. But Kissoon has already declared he does not care what manner of evil the GCB has done! He has no “knowledge of the rights and wrongs of the GCB”. So by exactly what moral standard does he use to judge Lloyd? Just by his opinion? He is now GOD? But let us say he follows the theory opposed to “consequentialism” – deontological ethics. What then? Deontologists say no matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden. They go by the rule – the right precedes the “good”. Well, isn’t this what Lloyd accepts? The GCB was breaking the fundamental rule pointed out by Justice Chang – it was not even a legal entity! Lloyd’s IMC will correct that anomaly – not by placing all GCB’s assets in private pockets as the GCB did, but by following the laws of Guyana!