|
On April 03 2012 07:11 Lokrium wrote:
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes.
Rationality depends on the eye of the beholder. Not that I'm saying that NK is rational, but rather that some countries you might think are rational have done some pretty iffy shit behind the curtains.
|
On April 03 2012 08:05 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 07:11 Lokrium wrote:
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes. Rationality depends on the eye of the beholder. Not that I'm saying that NK is rational, but rather that some countries you might think are rational have done some pretty iffy shit behind the curtains.
Rationality depends on rationality. The point of being rational is to avoid being subjective.
|
An interesting argument, but you miss the point OP.
The reason nuclear weapons are so powerful as a deterrent is because for the first time in history, the political class is directly threatened by war. It used to be in the old days that kings and generals were not on the front lines, but merely commanded the armies of peasantry. They were removed from the violence. Any threat to them could be met by sending more servants of the State to the battlefield. It was only when the entire kingdom or country was ruined that the political class were vulnerable.
Nuclear weapons however, bring the front lines to the political class. It makes them vulnerable. They directly fear nuclear retaliation, not just because they can be targeted, but because they are the primary targets. Nuclear weapons are there to cut the head off the snake.
So, the existence of nuclear weapons is, ultimately, a good thing, because it makes conventional warfare between nuclear nations virtually impossible. However, it also is a power that no person should have, nor need. Remember, the only reason nuclear weapons were developed is for the use by the State vs another State. Why? Because States are concentrated power, and threatening concentrated power directly is the best way to victory.
In a free society, without a State, there is no head to cut off. Defense is not over arbitrary borders, but private property. National defense does not exist, but private security. How do you fight a war vs an enemy which has no leadership, no government to force the surrender of its subjects? Look at how much the US struggles at fighting Al Qaeda and other dispersed organizations in the middle east. How would nuclear weapons do anything but wipe the entire place out? You can't fight that kind of enemy with large nuclear armament.
States have no reason to use nuclear weapons vs non-states. Nuclear weapons are for use against states.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 03 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 08:05 EtherealDeath wrote:On April 03 2012 07:11 Lokrium wrote:
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes. Rationality depends on the eye of the beholder. Not that I'm saying that NK is rational, but rather that some countries you might think are rational have done some pretty iffy shit behind the curtains. Rationality depends on rationality. The point of being rational is to avoid being subjective.
That's not what rationality is. Reason != logic. Objectivity simply doesn't factor in to this discussion, since it doesn't exist.
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 08:05 EtherealDeath wrote:On April 03 2012 07:11 Lokrium wrote:
MAD requires rational actors. North Korea, and plenty of other countries/organizations, are not rational actors, and should not be allowed to have nukes. Rationality depends on the eye of the beholder. Not that I'm saying that NK is rational, but rather that some countries you might think are rational have done some pretty iffy shit behind the curtains. Rationality depends on rationality. The point of being rational is to avoid being subjective.
That is a non-answer. Rationality simply requires an actor to make decisions based on weighing costs versus benefits. Rationality is not conditioned on an actor having a relatively congruent world view or set of politics.
In terms of what you are replying to, rationality has nothing to do with actions being 'iffy.' In fact, actions that are 'iffy' are often times the most rational things to do. Injecting morals and ideals into foreign policy analysis necessarily clouds judgement and makes resulting decisions based on such judgement inflexible.
In 1948, Hans J. Morgenthau wrote:
The statesman must think in terms of the national interest, conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman’s thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil.
In 1978, Hans J. Morgenthau wrote:
Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between the quality of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both moral and political terms.
We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful. Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?
|
On April 03 2012 12:09 Jibba wrote:
Objectivity simply doesn't factor in to this discussion, since it doesn't exist.
Do you feel that that is an objective truth?
edit: to be more clear, the proposition that "objectivity doesn't exist"
edit redux: Also, I'm curious to know how you understand the difference between "reason" and "logic" in more precise terms than simple non-identity.
|
On April 03 2012 12:33 itsjustatank wrote:
Rationality simply requires an actor to make decisions based on weighing costs versus benefits. Rationality is not conditioned on an actor having a relatively congruent world view or set of politics.
How does one determine what is a cost and what is a benefit?
|
On April 03 2012 12:09 Jibba wrote:
Objectivity simply doesn't factor in to this discussion, since it doesn't exist.
Is that an objective statement?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 03 2012 12:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 12:09 Jibba wrote:
Objectivity simply doesn't factor in to this discussion, since it doesn't exist. Do you feel that that is an objective truth? No, I don't. It's an induction based on lack of evidence, not a logical deduction.
edit redux: Also, I'm curious to know how you understand the difference between "reason" and "logic" in more precise terms than simple non-identity.
Logic exists within reason. Through logic you define rules and come to conclusions according to those rules, whereas reason does not necessarily obey the rules of the system. You can reason without logic, you cannot use logic without reason.
On April 03 2012 12:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 12:33 itsjustatank wrote:
Rationality simply requires an actor to make decisions based on weighing costs versus benefits. Rationality is not conditioned on an actor having a relatively congruent world view or set of politics. How does one determine what is a cost and what is a benefit?
It's subjective criteria.
In the context of the original quote, and often in game theory (and economics), rationality is mostly composed of self preservation. In that sense, Iran and North Korea are both rational actors. Their decision making comes through political sense and intuition, albeit with their own flairs, not faith.
|
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm not pulling out the Organon to have this discussion. You can have the philosophical discussion with someone else. I'd rather talk about international relations.
EDIT: And it was from Aristotle and syllogism where the first distinction could be made, even though he interchanged them in common language as most of us do.
|
Deal, so long as you don't feel philosophically justified 
edit: I do have to say, though, I think this reaction is probably the biggest problem in international relations.
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset.
|
My problem with nukes is that they are a response to nukes. We've developed past needing them as a weapon. If someone nukes someone else, the response will be to nuke them...maybe? depending on the country they might not even follow MAD. its more likely that old, "lost" nukes will fall into some bunch of fanatics' hands and they'll use it to blow up some populated area. and then the response is...nuke their home country? what? beyond that, realistically we have more effective ways to kill eachother that don't involve mutual destruction. and we have more ways to dominate eachother that don't even involve killing.
|
On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset.
What mindset? Philosophical?
I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles.
It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis!
To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important?
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset. What mindset? Philosophical? I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles. It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis! To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important?
Here's the thing. Humans acting in self-interest don't need moral or philosophical justifications for 'correct' action. Your intellectual questions are immobilizing and ignore pragmatic necessities for predictability in the real world.
|
On April 03 2012 14:38 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset. What mindset? Philosophical? I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles. It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis! To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important? Here's the thing. Humans acting in self-interest don't need moral or philosophical justifications for 'correct' action. Your intellectual questions are immobilizing and ignore pragmatic necessities for predictability in the real world.
What if the optimal outcome for all parties cannot be achieved through aggregate behavior of naive self-interest? Wouldn't this be likely to be the case in a complexly interconnected world in which even proximal causes can be very difficult to predict? Would not a consideration of this therefore be in the truly rational self-interest of all parties?
Your claim itself is a philosophical one, which nonetheless claims the invalidity of all philosophical claims. You can see how this is incoherent.
How do you understand "self-interest"?
Do you consider yourself an "intellectual"? If not, how do you see yourself?
edit: I hope it's clear from my tone that I'm legitimately interested in your replies.
|
Hong Kong9178 Posts
On April 03 2012 14:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:38 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset. What mindset? Philosophical? I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles. It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis! To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important? Here's the thing. Humans acting in self-interest don't need moral or philosophical justifications for 'correct' action. Your intellectual questions are immobilizing and ignore pragmatic necessities for predictability in the real world. What if the optimal outcome for all parties cannot be achieved through aggregate behavior of naive self-interest? Wouldn't this be likely to be the case in a complexly interconnected world in which even proximal causes can be very difficult to predict? Would not a consideration of this therefore be in the truly rational self-interest of all parties? Your claim itself is a philosophical one, which nonetheless claims the invalidity of all philosophical claims. You can see how this is incoherent. How do you understand "self-interest"?
International relations doesn't posit an 'optimal outcome' because there isn't one. The inability to achieve optimal outcomes is the very reason for its existence. 'Optimal outcomes' only exist in the ivory tower world of purely academic thought-games.
And self-interest, in terms of international relations, is defned as maximizing power and ensuring self-survival.
|
On April 03 2012 14:52 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 14:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 14:38 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:On April 03 2012 14:17 itsjustatank wrote:On April 03 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:
What kinds of things would you consider to be evidence that objectivity were possible?
Do you claim allegiance to a specific philosophical tradition or is this largely your own thought?
Can you give an example of something that would be reasonable but not logical? I'm having trouble imagining this.
Are "rational" and "reasonable" equivalent in the way you use them? (And by extension "rationality" and "reason")
If cost and benefit are subjective criteria, how would you judge whether or not somebody was acting rationally? Presumably there would be, for any observed action, some values of cost and benefit which would make them rational? Or do we have a reason to believe this not to be the case? Or should we instead conclude that whether or not an actor was rational was indeterminate from any outside perspective?
What assumptions are we making if we postulate that rationality is based on self-preservation? What is self-preservation (i.e. in the real world what are the selves that are being preserved and what is their ontological status)? What are the sufficient conditions for "preserved"?
Are there any elements of this system which you consider to be a priori? Which would they be?
Enjoy trying to predict anything worthwhile in the real world with this mindset. What mindset? Philosophical? I find it troubling that people go around thinking they are acting "rationally" without being willing to engage on what rationality is in the first place. It seems very presumptuous and short-sighted to me, really. I think a very productive discussion that the world needs to have involves some re-examination of our first principles. It's a bit funny because I just had a discussion about whether or not it was possible to predict anything. I was the only one arguing the positive thesis! To be sure I am not considering prediction here, but rather the justifications for correct action. Why is that not important? Here's the thing. Humans acting in self-interest don't need moral or philosophical justifications for 'correct' action. Your intellectual questions are immobilizing and ignore pragmatic necessities for predictability in the real world. What if the optimal outcome for all parties cannot be achieved through aggregate behavior of naive self-interest? Wouldn't this be likely to be the case in a complexly interconnected world in which even proximal causes can be very difficult to predict? Would not a consideration of this therefore be in the truly rational self-interest of all parties? Your claim itself is a philosophical one, which nonetheless claims the invalidity of all philosophical claims. You can see how this is incoherent. How do you understand "self-interest"? International relations doesn't posit an 'optimal outcome' because there isn't one. The inability to achieve optimal outcomes is the very reason for the its very existence. 'Optimal outcomes' only exist in the ivory tower world of purely academic thought-games.
Yes, the academic community accepts this. Theory always posits optimal outcomes, in reality there is always noise. Any good theoretician understands this.
And self-interest, in terms of international relations, is defned as maximizing power and ensuring self-survival.
Self survival of the state? Do you anticipate that the nation-state as we understand it now will be a constant feature for the rest of human history?
edit: How would you define the difference between a "thought-game" and the kind of thing the OP does? Are they the same thing?
|
On April 03 2012 14:52 itsjustatank wrote:
And self-interest, in terms of international relations, is defned as maximizing power and ensuring self-survival.
So then you accept that if it turns out that these are not good (or normative) definitions of self-interest then all arguments stemming from this premise are only academic thought games?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
