To me “should” implies a righteous or moral obligation between a more powerful state and weaker state. Given the variance in moral systems and judgments of what is proper or right across the world, I don’t think this interpretation can really be applied to our current world political system. Whether more powerful states should intervene or not in weaker states’ affairs has much more to do with real political, economic and cultural reasons than with the powerful states taking on the role of protector and defender in the name of justice. Rather than “should powerful states look after the well being of lesser/weak states?” I would alter the question to read:
Are there acceptable incentives/interests that allow more powerful states to intervene on behalf of the well being of a lesser/weaker state? And if so what are they? Must these possible motivations be mutually beneficial to both the nations involved?
I would answer yes to the first question. Acceptable reasons for intervention include the instability of a weaker state threatening the security of the stronger state or for the purpose of doling out aid in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Often though a nation cloaks its true interventionist goals with the proclamation of acting for the greater good of all or under a similarly sweet but empty proclamation. The “War on Terror”, with its broad and sweeping mission of rooting out violent radical groups around the world has not lived up to its name. US economic interests have directed which groups and countries we focus our attention and efforts on. This lack of transparency in government actions and politics in general angers me, but I realize on the other hand that the international community is going to be a lot less receptive to a “War to Protect US Oil Interests” than a war marketed as being beneficial to all. The United States government is supposed to protect US interests, whether their current strategies of doing so are really acceptable to its citizens is arguable, but also beside the point in this case. A nation-state’s first priority is self-preservation, perhaps as we move towards a different form of government with a greater concert of global powers this will change.
3 comments:
You say that states act in their own interests and ought only to intervene in beneficial situations (which their citizens support). While this is a rational proposal, you base your logic on an anecdote of a "powerful [state] taking on the role of protector and defender in the name of justice." It may just be me, but I felt a bit of sarcasm in your conceptual use of "justice." This, I believe, is dangerous theoretical ground to be running in. "Given the variance in moral systems and judgments of what is proper or right across the world, I don’t think this interpretation [right and wrong, namely] can really be applied to our current world political system." You assume that there is no universal right or wrong because of the claims of a modern, relative, historicized society that has forgotten its past. Suppose there is a right action and a wrong action. States would have a duty to act to ensure a good outcome. Suppose, instead, that we take your logic to its conclusion and say states need to act in their self interest. Now, their self interest (as it is properly understood) may be to act in a way that is beneficial to the rest of the world. on the other hand, it may be to act in a way that is harmful to the rest of the world. Even if the citizens of a country were opposed to harmful actions (we of course have no guarantee that they will be), wouldn't it be in the state's best interest to lie to them and convince them with pretty ideals like a "war on terror?"
Sorry to plod on so much, I do have a serious question.
My real problem with your argument: You say that, because morals are relativistic in nature in modern society, we can't say societies have a duty to protect other, weaker societies. Instead you want to grant states the freedom to intervene only if the situation is mutually beneficial. However, in this relativistic society you have given credence to, what gives you the right to tell me I have to respect sovereignty in the first place? If you can't say people have a duty to act, you also can't say they have a duty to restrain themselves. So, I am a country that likes to take over weaker countries. There is no moral code by which I feel obliged to live, and you said that is just fine. Why shouldn't I go take their land and enslave their population? On what grounds do you prevent me from acting in my self interest?
I must agree with SilenceDoGood and say that while s mcdaniel is philosophical, economic utility is the driving force policy-making of every nation.
McDaniel contends that morals do not exist in the present day due to society forgetting the past. I believe that SilenceDoGood simply was saying ethical standards and values vary from culture to culture and that due to this, you cannot use blanket statments that something is good or evil.
Regardless of morals, economic self-interest is the key to nearly every argument I've read, and this post is no different. Why not, "invade a country and enslave its population"? Because war is expensive, and resulting sanctions can damage economies beyond repair.
It simply is not in a nation's self-interest to do so. I find acting out of self-interest the only logical argument for whether or not powerful nations should involve themselves in the assistance of poorer states.
"McDaniel contends that morals do not exist in the present day due to society forgetting the past." I was trying to make the point that morals do exist, whether they are recognized or not.
"Because war is expensive, and resulting sanctions can damage economies beyond repair."
I can gain quite a lot by taking over my neighbors' resources; I can build an empire. I found quite a lot of economic gain in that the last time I read my history books. Plus, if I am the devious leader my people say I am, I don't really care about international bodies or sanctions or anything like that. And as long as people are too busy worrying about their own self interest (war is expensive) to stop me, life is good.
Post a Comment