is the problem that we face as an exercise in "political history of ethical thought, in the area blog moral philosophy. This is my reflection:
On the first account I do not think "tatemae" of the Japanese has been partly to blame for a lack of control to the government and the security of their plants. In fact, nuclear Japan is the "safer" (Quotation marks and recomillas) in the world, prepared to withstand earthquakes of high intensity such as occurred in Fukushima on 11 March. What could not overcome was the central event of "blackout" generated by the subsequent tsunami. The plant was in technical stop in anticipation of the earthquake and therefore needed some auxiliary engines that provide power to ensure core cooling, the tsunami made all three engines and the nucleus was without refrigeration. The catastrophe was served. Six cores running on empty and without control. The question here is how far security when it comes to nuclear power plants? I guess this is the question that leads people becoming Greenpeace Japan in recent years. Indeed, a educadísima people, like here, but who are not married to anyone at the time of placing limits on the exploitation of natural resources and misuse of the environment in which we must necessarily live or, as now themselves and unfortunately, survive.
I would not be deceived by the government if he were living in a situation like living in the cities that are within a radius of 250 km around Fukushima, this includes the capital and all the people living inside. I would like to have reliable data that allowed me to make my own decisions, what I'm exposed to what my children are exposed only to breathe, drink only water, only eat. Not only because the certainty that you have lost your home, your city, your friends, family, is also certain that you are exposed to lose the future in their lives. I want to have data on it. I want to decide myself how to deal with and put to work my ability and will to survive. Or not.
Secondly there is the possibility, true and many times unavoidable, lies as a means necessary, I understand, not further spoil things sometimes white lies, fibs, "jokes" as the children say using a term as "politically correct" as false in itself. Without doubt, falsehood, as advocated by Oscar Wilde in that charming little book "The Decay of Lying" as a "tale of beautiful untrue things, can help at some point to avoid an unwanted specific situation, but always ephemeral, temporary and now add, very personal, never as a tool for public use. "Lying is the very short legs," said my grandmother, lying as "formula" of survival does not seem possible to go very far in our creation of honest people.
Finally, I think the lack of transparency, the veiled lies, half truths, have made people lose confidence in the possibilities of politics and, especially, in the work they do politicians. Thinking that "the people", to use the same term used in the header does not have sufficient maturity to evaluate different critical situations in which we are fully immersed and that are derived from five inter-related crises are inevitably linked , we talk about environmental crisis, economic, energy, social, political ... it is still a serious lack of confidence, politicians, and an excuse to continue feeding "white lies" policy, which will allow the elections to survive but not build the future.
must look ahead and assume once and for all the depth and strength of these crises, with responsibility, honesty, courage and confidence in our capacity of citizens. Politicians also should assume their citizenship skills. I do not consider the capabilities of the people in setting priorities in decision-making is a very irresponsible. I think so, that politicians should take their citizenship before the politicians, as prior to a yet to win credibility. Strive for "citizen" policy, if I may use the word, to recover the policy for the noblest of its tasks, the management of the polis, the public square than they have in common, collective. Now more than ever, air, water, food, education and culture, in equity, transparency.
In any case, I agree to revise this post after the May 22 and discuss the feelings he has conveyed the campaign in this regard. I think I spoke as a student until the penultimate paragraph, I think then triggered my candidatez, I beg understanding.
