Search Results: present your case

Let's say you're in a situation where you have a theory, and for whatever reason that theory is that by killing this one innocent person, you can save 100 people. You could very well be wrong, and it could very well be the case that you will be the only one with blood on your hands and that no good will come from this deed, and no matter what analogy you use, this doubt will be ever present in at least some amount.

Will you take the first step with an immoral action thinking there will be a moral outcome?

I'm not referring to a monarchy, nor some Saddam-style regime, where the dictator appoints his family to key government positions.

'm talking about when people of little to no discernible talent are elected to, or run for, office, simply because of what their name is.

Obvious examples that we will all recognise are Hillary Clinton's ill-starred attempts to win the American presidency, the Bush political dynasty, and the sinister stranglehold the Kennedy Clan had over a variety of New England jurisdictions until recently.

However, it is not just the United States, and this question is not intended to single out the United States. It is simply the case that most G@G users will be more familiar with those examples.

I could also use the present Canadian Prime Minister, as an example, the father / son presidency of the Kabilas, in the ludicrously-named Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty in India, the Ramgoolams and the Jugnauths in Mauritius - the list goes on and on and on...

If your country has a habit of electing people like this, why do you think this is?

Or if it doesn't, why do you think it's not happening?