Morality in Forgein Policy

[Hairyman]

Dear All,

here (http://afr.com/articles/2005/03/03/1109700606872.html) is a big article discussing the place of morality in foreign policy.

It is a challenging piece by an expert in public policy and ethics.

It comes with a very big, big-word and difficult concept warning.

The vast majority of ZGeekers clearly have the mental capacity to deal with it.

I think it has the capacity to improve the general level of debate. It will challenge your individual pont of view.

I would love to see more exchanges in the discussion section rise above the exchange of personal abuse.

It will only be on the AFR site for another 6 days, so if you are interested, get in soon.

Nodbugger I directly challenge you to get through this article.

[dwarfthrower]

To be honest, there's nothing particularly earth-shattering in that. Morality being defined as??? It's all well and good to point out that foreign policy is not the interactions between non-person "states", but between the populations of those states, and therefore subject to an expectation of moral conduct somewhere between that which we would hold an individual to, and that which we would hold a rock to. But it falls over when the author fails to expand on what they actually mean by "morality".

[polite]

This brings Mill to his main concern, the intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states. He begins by making a distinction between "civilised nations" and "barbarians" - a distinction few would have the confidence to make today - and insisting that different rules apply to the two: "the rules of ordinary international morality imply reciprocity. But barbarians will not reciprocate. They cannot be depended on for observing the rules".

Genghis Khan but Immanuel Kant?

[johny_roberts]

I stay out of this thread all the time. I just want to say this though" "

I have nothing to add war sucks

[Hairyman]

Thanks for indulging me and having a look at the article Dwarfthrower.

The morality is implied in the article. If one was to choose to be an absolutist, then you would choose the moral teachings of the deontologists (for societies these are our dominant religions) and would apply them in blanket fashion without regard for subsequent effects. For example ban contraception and have no programme for dealing with the needs of single mothers or STDs.

If you choose to be a utilitarian, then you would choose act in a way that would maximise the good that is produced. For example, to provide needle exchanges orother harm-minimisation measures to the various societal ills.

For the followers of the ethics of Kant, then you would base your morality on the basis of 4 main pillars: Beneficence (to do good), Non-Maleficence (to avoid doing harm), Autonomy (to respect the rights of the individual to act as they choose) and Justice (a system of fairness, and a surprisingly difficult concept because justice can be relative depending on whether viewed from an individual or societal viewpoint).

I agree that there is nothing earth-shattering in the article. I felt moved to post it, and felt bold enough to challenge others to read it (which was probably tinged with some egotism) because it provided such a good general outline of the conflicting schools of thought.

If you can understand the line of thinking which you are naturally drawn to, then your opinion becomes more refined and informed. It may also make you shift in your thinking on the basis of a deeper understanding of the whole subject. I would hope it takes some of the pointless name calling out of the debate (although my hope is very small).

It has changed my point of view. It has made me shift toward a lower moral standard for the actions of nation-states, but has reinforced my opinion on the need for prudent action in foreign policy pursuits. I think it throws a stark light on the foolish adventurism of invading Iraq. It also reinforces my opinion that the utility of one's actions must be carefully considered in such and area, and that simple reactionism is more than likely to be counter-productive.

[Hairyman]

Polite, that is a terrible pun.

[polite]

Polite, that is a terrible pun.

Agreed, but if those two faced off and had an argument about morality who would be left standing?. The former because he wouldn't care less about what the latter was saying, and would react the only way he knew.

[Hairyman]

It would be the epitome of power politics. The consequences of which would depend on the relative strengths of the nations behind the men. It would be a terrible outcome for Kant, but may prove a pyrrhic victory for Genghis Khan.