Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What decides right and wrong in foreign policy?

Page 3 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Near the Delaware River

20 Mar 2013, 9:25 pm

Why don't we go back further in history....

The UK campaign against slavery in the 1800s.....

The pan-(western) european public campaign against dealings with the Barbary Pirates (~1815)....

Cases where the economic and foreign policy of the (at the time) most powerful country was changed...and in spite of most of the powerful blocs of the time (Sugar producers in the first, the Royal Navy in the second).


_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)


fueledbycoffee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 566
Location: Baltimore

20 Mar 2013, 11:17 pm

I agree. One could suppose that the Barbary Pirates affair was just good business. However, the anti-Slavery thing was purely bad business. After all, you have a virtually unlimited supply of cheap labor, with almost no political damage. Yet, the British pissed off a lot of people for the sake of taking down the Slave trade. The US (arguably) fought a war with itself over it. So, why do it, except for moral reasons?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Mar 2013, 4:01 am

fueledbycoffee wrote:
I agree. One could suppose that the Barbary Pirates affair was just good business. However, the anti-Slavery thing was purely bad business. After all, you have a virtually unlimited supply of cheap labor, with almost no political damage. Yet, the British pissed off a lot of people for the sake of taking down the Slave trade. The US (arguably) fought a war with itself over it. So, why do it, except for moral reasons?


Political Reasons which involve power, prestige and personal ego.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Mar 2013, 2:47 pm

fueledbycoffee wrote:
I agree. One could suppose that the Barbary Pirates affair was just good business. However, the anti-Slavery thing was purely bad business. After all, you have a virtually unlimited supply of cheap labor, with almost no political damage. Yet, the British pissed off a lot of people for the sake of taking down the Slave trade. The US (arguably) fought a war with itself over it. So, why do it, except for moral reasons?


On the contrary, taking down the slave trade made eminent economic sense. Elimination of slavery within the British Empire was the culmination of the Industrial Revolution.

The viability of sugar and other plantation crops of the Carribbean colonies were diminishing, particularly in the period after the American Revolution. While ongoing slavery would have provided some further years of productivity, the industries were ultimately doomed to fail.

The economy of Britain had been radically changed by the Industrial Revolution. Her prosperity now depended upon her industrial output which could vastly outproduce slave produced finished goods, and which could better depend upon raw materials that were mechanically extracted, or extracted through paid labour.

The abolition of slavery forced capital to adjust to the new economic reality--and Britain became the dominant economic force for the rest of the 19th century as a result.


_________________
--James


getrealguy
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 15

21 Mar 2013, 5:24 pm

Obviously, whether it´s good to society as a whole. At least that should be the deciding factor.

Foreign policy is often more beneficial for certain groups than it is for others.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

22 Mar 2013, 11:53 am

getrealguy wrote:
Obviously, whether it´s good to society as a whole. At least that should be the deciding factor.

Foreign policy is often more beneficial for certain groups than it is for others.


But which society?

All of human society? The entirety of the society that the governments leads? That portion of the society that represents the government's power base?

While we might like to think that every foreign policy choice that a government has presents clear right and wrong options, that is not the reality. Governments are, necessarily, going to make different choices from each other, and they are going to do it for deliberate reasons. Not necessarily the best reasons, or the most moral ones, but reasons that are the product of careful consideration.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2013, 12:56 pm

The perceived interests of the ruling group of a nation decides foreign policy.

Foreign policy is made up as the ruling clique goes along.

ruveyn



statslover
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 13

22 Mar 2013, 7:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:
fueledbycoffee wrote:
I agree. One could suppose that the Barbary Pirates affair was just good business. However, the anti-Slavery thing was purely bad business. After all, you have a virtually unlimited supply of cheap labor, with almost no political damage. Yet, the British pissed off a lot of people for the sake of taking down the Slave trade. The US (arguably) fought a war with itself over it. So, why do it, except for moral reasons?


Political Reasons which involve power, prestige and personal ego.

ruveyn


William Wilberforce was hardly motivated by power - all contemporary accounts describe him as a deeply religious man motivated by the fundamental principles of his faith to drive towards the emancipation of slaves. It was his driving influence as an MP that lead to the abolition of slavery, not as a cabinet member. He had few political aspirations - he was never a minister, and remained always independent. He also made efforts towards laws enforcing humane treatment of animals. He is the prototypical example of morally driven politician.



statslover
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 13

22 Mar 2013, 7:21 pm

visagrunt wrote:
getrealguy wrote:
Obviously, whether it´s good to society as a whole. At least that should be the deciding factor.

Foreign policy is often more beneficial for certain groups than it is for others.


But which society?

All of human society? The entirety of the society that the governments leads? That portion of the society that represents the government's power base?

While we might like to think that every foreign policy choice that a government has presents clear right and wrong options, that is not the reality. Governments are, necessarily, going to make different choices from each other, and they are going to do it for deliberate reasons. Not necessarily the best reasons, or the most moral ones, but reasons that are the product of careful consideration.


While I do not believe right or wrong is possible to define in an absolute sense, Visagrunt, right and wrong, at least to the extent that prognosticators understand the outcomes, are definable given a narrow context. Applying a moral basis to right rather than a Geopolitical-Economic (these could be made much more precise as one defines moral) one would provide a much clearer understanding of what right is. For example, whereas it may be more advantageous to support a feeble and corrupt dictatorial regime in a neighbouring country in order to keep natural resource prices low in the short term, as well as maintaining regional military superiority, it would not be morally right (I restrict myself to fictional examples because, relative to you and fueled I am not particularly knowledgeable). My conclusion may be fairly obvious, but I believe it is worth stating, the nature of right and wrong in foreign policy can be understood to a much greater extent if the actions of the state are judged with respect to a set of objectives; choosing which objectives to utilize in evaluating any policy or collection of policies is when human subjectivity is applied.



AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Near the Delaware River

22 Mar 2013, 7:46 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The perceived interests of the ruling group of a nation decides foreign policy.

Foreign policy is made up as the ruling clique goes along.

ruveyn


I question if the growth in communication technology and the difusion of power in the western Anglo-American political tradition has turned "ruling clique" into "collective interest groups".

Or, if we took the view that sometimes very small events can have a great impact, let's look at the impact of Dr. Hampar Kelikian and Edward Jacobson, both of whom had a major impact of foreign policy because of their involvement earlier in life with politicians who would gain influence decades later.


_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)


Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

23 Mar 2013, 8:28 am

ruveyn wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Right or wrong are moral terms. If you don't want to bring morality into it, you must choose other words.

Not so. right or wrong also pertain to correctness or incorrectness. As in he got the right number when he added up the column.

True, but irrelevant unless you can show that it is a logical contradiction to let considerations besides the self-interest of the nation influence foreign policy.

ruveyn wrote:
Right and Wrong also pertain to whether a means produces a specified end. As in he employed the right means to his end.

Equally true, but if you define the self-interest of the nation as the specified end, you are begging the question. You presuppose your conclusion.

But I can rephrase my follow-up questions: If you want to define the judgement of what is right or wrong only in terms of self-interest, do you apply that position only to nations, or also other entities? Corporations? Football clubs? People? If self-interest defines right or wrong for only some of them, why should that be so?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Mar 2013, 9:12 am

Gromit wrote:

But I can rephrase my follow-up questions: If you want to define the judgement of what is right or wrong only in terms of self-interest, do you apply that position only to nations, or also other entities? Corporations? Football clubs? People? If self-interest defines right or wrong for only some of them, why should that be so?


Whenever humans team up, self-interest transforms itself into team-interest.

ruveyn



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

23 Mar 2013, 3:48 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Whenever humans team up, self-interest transforms itself into team-interest.

A nation is not a person. National self-interest is only another kind of team-interest. If you meant to answer my question, I guess the answer is that the right decision is always to act in self-interest, although that may not be defined at the individual level but at the level of some group. Is that what you mean?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Mar 2013, 6:32 pm

statslover wrote:
While I do not believe right or wrong is possible to define in an absolute sense, Visagrunt, right and wrong, at least to the extent that prognosticators understand the outcomes, are definable given a narrow context. Applying a moral basis to right rather than a Geopolitical-Economic (these could be made much more precise as one defines moral) one would provide a much clearer understanding of what right is. For example, whereas it may be more advantageous to support a feeble and corrupt dictatorial regime in a neighbouring country in order to keep natural resource prices low in the short term, as well as maintaining regional military superiority, it would not be morally right (I restrict myself to fictional examples because, relative to you and fueled I am not particularly knowledgeable). My conclusion may be fairly obvious, but I believe it is worth stating, the nature of right and wrong in foreign policy can be understood to a much greater extent if the actions of the state are judged with respect to a set of objectives; choosing which objectives to utilize in evaluating any policy or collection of policies is when human subjectivity is applied.


I don't disagree that you can assess foreign policy decisions through a moral lens.

My position, though, is that such an assessment is futile, for two principal reasons:

1) That is not the framework within which the decision is made. Governments have an ethical obligation to their citizens, and they are accountable to the individuals who put them into power (whether that is the electorate in democratic states, or some smaller group of people in other states). Governments are not free to indulge in morality where that is inconsistent with their ethical obligation to their citizens.

2) Morality is inherently vague. There are relatively few topics on which you could build a consensus that a particular course of action is malum in se. The great majority of foreign policy decisions are, in fact, morally ambiguous, and depend entirely upon the moral lens of the observer. So whose moral lens do you use to assess the government's decisions?

So you think your government should have done X because it was the right thing to do. There is doubtless someone else who believes that your government should have done Y because it was the right thing to do. Where's the value in thousands of competing moral visions?


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Mar 2013, 8:44 pm

Your elected leaders decide foreign policy.

If you don't like it, wait until the next election.

ruveyn



statslover
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 13

26 Mar 2013, 9:17 pm

visagrunt wrote:
statslover wrote:
While I do not believe right or wrong is possible to define in an absolute sense, Visagrunt, right and wrong, at least to the extent that prognosticators understand the outcomes, are definable given a narrow context. Applying a moral basis to right rather than a Geopolitical-Economic (these could be made much more precise as one defines moral) one would provide a much clearer understanding of what right is. For example, whereas it may be more advantageous to support a feeble and corrupt dictatorial regime in a neighbouring country in order to keep natural resource prices low in the short term, as well as maintaining regional military superiority, it would not be morally right (I restrict myself to fictional examples because, relative to you and fueled I am not particularly knowledgeable). My conclusion may be fairly obvious, but I believe it is worth stating, the nature of right and wrong in foreign policy can be understood to a much greater extent if the actions of the state are judged with respect to a set of objectives; choosing which objectives to utilize in evaluating any policy or collection of policies is when human subjectivity is applied.


I don't disagree that you can assess foreign policy decisions through a moral lens.

My position, though, is that such an assessment is futile, for two principal reasons:

1) That is not the framework within which the decision is made. Governments have an ethical obligation to their citizens, and they are accountable to the individuals who put them into power (whether that is the electorate in democratic states, or some smaller group of people in other states). Governments are not free to indulge in morality where that is inconsistent with their ethical obligation to their citizens.

2) Morality is inherently vague. There are relatively few topics on which you could build a consensus that a particular course of action is malum in se. The great majority of foreign policy decisions are, in fact, morally ambiguous, and depend entirely upon the moral lens of the observer. So whose moral lens do you use to assess the government's decisions?

So you think your government should have done X because it was the right thing to do. There is doubtless someone else who believes that your government should have done Y because it was the right thing to do. Where's the value in thousands of competing moral visions?


I did not explain myself very well. My principle point is that right and wrong is ultimately subjective: "as one defines morality". If you view every decision through the policy-framework implemented by whatever authorities using only the information they had at the time, it is only possible to arrive at their decision. With the benefit of hindsight of course, policies can be judged to be right or wrong even within the same, domestic, decision making context. A very specific lens is required to interpret Government decisions, perhaps in moral cases the lens needs to be very explicit.


_________________
Stridency is a sin. Pragmatism is the ultimate virtue.