|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I'm not a fan of using morality in politics tbh. Ideologies tend to generate very different moral systems, and even using rationality to describe moral systems isn't very effective because most incoherences that you can spot tend to assume other moral positions that the criticized system might not, or probably doesn't, have. Everything to the right of (classical) liberalism also doesn't posit that rationality is necessary or central.
|
On May 23 2019 00:41 On_Slaught wrote:
Speaking of the morality of the Trump admin, a 5th child has died in custody at the border. Something is wrong here (beyond the obvious). As the Congressional Hispanic Caucus put it, nobody died in the last 10 years in border detention, yet now we have 5 deaths in less than a year. Even if the no deaths in 10 years thing isn't accurate, 5 in less than a year is unacceptable.
This is what I mean by washing immorality through "national interest" and (what I consider) bullshit nationalism. Through that and defending it by way of "necessity in the national interest" one can launder one's own disdain/disregard for the humanity of those children (or any marginalized person) through rhetoric on it's importance to adherence to law and national security.
One can turn the internment of Japanese Americans into an unfortunate amoral result of national defense. One can turn the extermination of Polish Jews into an amoral necessity of German nationalism, and so on.
|
On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 13:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to harass you about it, but I'm just curious about your reasoning for not answering whether you think Trump is moral? Moral in what sense? There are certainly aspects of his personal life that I don't approve of. But as president, I think he's been fine. I don't think morality splits itself into a professional and personal capacity. One either tries to be a moral being or doesn't afaik. Granted we all fall short sometimes, my question is whether he fits the textbook definition of a moral person in your view? 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. Or I suppose I'd like you to expand on your understanding of morality that distinguishes one's personal behavior from their professional behavior? I’ve never pretended that Trump is some paragon of virtue. But regardless of personal shortcomings, I do find that he has governed morally enough as president. "Morally enough" for/relative to what? Let me ask you this question: do you think Obama was moral? No, I don't. Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why? As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time.
So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs?
|
On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 13:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 12:55 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Moral in what sense? There are certainly aspects of his personal life that I don't approve of. But as president, I think he's been fine. I don't think morality splits itself into a professional and personal capacity. One either tries to be a moral being or doesn't afaik. Granted we all fall short sometimes, my question is whether he fits the textbook definition of a moral person in your view? 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. Or I suppose I'd like you to expand on your understanding of morality that distinguishes one's personal behavior from their professional behavior? I’ve never pretended that Trump is some paragon of virtue. But regardless of personal shortcomings, I do find that he has governed morally enough as president. "Morally enough" for/relative to what? Let me ask you this question: do you think Obama was moral? No, I don't. Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why? As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs?
Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly.
|
On May 23 2019 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 13:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I don't think morality splits itself into a professional and personal capacity. One either tries to be a moral being or doesn't afaik. Granted we all fall short sometimes, my question is whether he fits the textbook definition of a moral person in your view?
[quote]
Or I suppose I'd like you to expand on your understanding of morality that distinguishes one's personal behavior from their professional behavior? I’ve never pretended that Trump is some paragon of virtue. But regardless of personal shortcomings, I do find that he has governed morally enough as president. "Morally enough" for/relative to what? Let me ask you this question: do you think Obama was moral? No, I don't. Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why? As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs? Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly.
But people will always behave badly. There is no way to force good actions without regulation. And there is no force of the large scale regulations needed with a smaller government. Do you feel that a limited government can work with how shitty people are in general?
|
On May 23 2019 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 13:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I don't think morality splits itself into a professional and personal capacity. One either tries to be a moral being or doesn't afaik. Granted we all fall short sometimes, my question is whether he fits the textbook definition of a moral person in your view?
[quote]
Or I suppose I'd like you to expand on your understanding of morality that distinguishes one's personal behavior from their professional behavior? I’ve never pretended that Trump is some paragon of virtue. But regardless of personal shortcomings, I do find that he has governed morally enough as president. "Morally enough" for/relative to what? Let me ask you this question: do you think Obama was moral? No, I don't. Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why? As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs? Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly.
So why does a line on the map delimit when the government should treat someone morally and when it shouldn't? Aren't there some edicts that transcend these lines on the map?
I find this fixation on squiggles on the map quite interesting. So if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of Mexico, it is acceptable to you that the government do so. But if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of New Mexico, it would not be acceptable to you?
And we should probably discuss what "the best interest of the nation" is, but lets just assume for the sake of this argument that the "greater good" outweighs the annihilation of New Mexico.
|
On May 23 2019 02:25 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I’ve never pretended that Trump is some paragon of virtue. But regardless of personal shortcomings, I do find that he has governed morally enough as president. "Morally enough" for/relative to what? Let me ask you this question: do you think Obama was moral? No, I don't. Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why? As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs? Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly. But people will always behave badly. There is no way to force good actions without regulation. And there is no force of the large scale regulations needed with a smaller government. Do you feel that a limited government can work with how shitty people are in general?
That's what he's saying. Government presence is immoral as it restricts freedom, but it's necessary because if it wasn't there people would behave badly.
You can attack the logic better if you attack the concept of freedom, and you make the argument that a system to the left of capitalism is inherently more free than a system with capitalism, provided equal level of government intervention; if you care so much about freedom logic would dictate that you consider socialism with a limited government, as exploitation by definition limits the freedom of the exploited.
|
Trump walked out on Schumer and Pelosi after 3 minutes in their planned infrastructure talks. He threw a fit and won't work with them until they stop investigating him. So nothing will happen on infrastructure. He just refuses to do his job.
He also added a No Collusion No Obstruction info graphic to his presidential speaking pedestal when he went to the Rose Garden to complain about how harsh he's been treated.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TbUdlxL.jpg)
The confrontation came on a day when pressure over a possible impeachment effort raised temperatures on both sides of the aisle. Ms. Pelosi arrived at the White House for a session with the president set to talk about infrastructure shortly after meeting with restive House Democrats on Capitol Hill to talk about impeachment. She emerged from that meeting with Democrats accusing Mr. Trump of a “cover-up.”
When she and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, arrived at the White House, Mr. Trump was loaded for bear. He walked into the Cabinet Room and did not shake anyone’s hand or sit in his seat, according to a Democrat informed about the meeting. He said that he wanted to advance legislation on infrastructure, trade and other matters, but that Ms. Pelosi had said something “terrible” by accusing him of a cover-up, according to the Democrat. NYT
He wanted to advance legislation but Pelosi said something terrible so now he can't do it.
Democrats are countering that it was a planned walkout given the pre-printed infographics and that he never had a infrastructure plan in the first place. It's kind of sad that 'my feelings were hurt' is what he thinks will save him on this.
|
that’s fairly pathetic, pitiable. with the seal of the potus above it, he wants to make sure everyone knows how persecuted he is. truly, he has it bad.
that’s going to be received very poorly by a lot of people his laws are fucking over really hard. he’s got all this sympathy for his plight as the rich white president of the united states, meanwhile children die at the border. he’s got our country’s best interests in mind, no doubt about it.
|
I feel like that infographic should be engraved on his tombstone. You know, metaphorically.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 02:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I’ve never pretended that Trump is some paragon of virtue. But regardless of personal shortcomings, I do find that he has governed morally enough as president. "Morally enough" for/relative to what? Let me ask you this question: do you think Obama was moral? No, I don't. Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why? As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs? Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly. So why does a line on the map delimit when the government should treat someone morally and when it shouldn't? Aren't there some edicts that transcend these lines on the map? I find this fixation on squiggles on the map quite interesting. So if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of Mexico, it is acceptable to you that the government do so. But if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of New Mexico, it would not be acceptable to you? And we should probably discuss what "the best interest of the nation" is, but lets just assume for the sake of this argument that the "greater good" outweighs the annihilation of New Mexico.
It's not the lines on the map that matter so much as what the lines tend to represent: groupings of peoples that adhere to common sets of values and rules -- ie nations. This is part and parcel of the concept of the social contract. A nation bands together and forms a government in large part to form a common defense against any outsider who would threaten their values and way of life. The government is then responsible for promoting the interests of the people it represents in a realm that has minimal rules (indeed, the existence of any rules in this realm is a fairly recent development), which is in stark contrast to the conditions within society itself. In short, the intranational realm is materially different from the international realm, which is why different considerations apply for how to act.
|
On May 23 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 02:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
"Morally enough" for/relative to what?
[quote]
No, I don't. Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why? As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs? Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly. So why does a line on the map delimit when the government should treat someone morally and when it shouldn't? Aren't there some edicts that transcend these lines on the map? I find this fixation on squiggles on the map quite interesting. So if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of Mexico, it is acceptable to you that the government do so. But if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of New Mexico, it would not be acceptable to you? And we should probably discuss what "the best interest of the nation" is, but lets just assume for the sake of this argument that the "greater good" outweighs the annihilation of New Mexico. It's not the lines on the map that matter so much as what the lines tend to represent: groupings of peoples that adhere to common sets of values and rules -- ie nations. This is part and parcel of the concept of the social contract. A nation bands together and forms a government in large part to form a common defense against any outsider who would threaten their values and way of life. The government is then responsible for promoting the interests of the people it represents in a realm that has minimal rules (indeed, the existence of any rules in this realm is a fairly recent development), which is in stark contrast to the conditions within society itself. In short, the intranational realm is materially different from the international realm, which is why different considerations apply for how to act.
Where does the internment of Japanese-Americans fall in the intranational vs international realms you've described?
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 02:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 15:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
"Morally enough" for/relative to what?
[quote]
No, I don't. Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why? As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs? Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly. So why does a line on the map delimit when the government should treat someone morally and when it shouldn't? Aren't there some edicts that transcend these lines on the map? I find this fixation on squiggles on the map quite interesting. So if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of Mexico, it is acceptable to you that the government do so. But if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of New Mexico, it would not be acceptable to you? And we should probably discuss what "the best interest of the nation" is, but lets just assume for the sake of this argument that the "greater good" outweighs the annihilation of New Mexico. It's not the lines on the map that matter so much as what the lines tend to represent: groupings of peoples that adhere to common sets of values and rules -- ie nations. This is part and parcel of the concept of the social contract. A nation bands together and forms a government in large part to form a common defense against any outsider who would threaten their values and way of life. The government is then responsible for promoting the interests of the people it represents in a realm that has minimal rules (indeed, the existence of any rules in this realm is a fairly recent development), which is in stark contrast to the conditions within society itself. In short, the intranational realm is materially different from the international realm, which is why different considerations apply for how to act.
Except that this is quite explicitly not true for most post-colonial nations... and in fact for plenty of European nations too.
Post-colonial nations, including the US, have borders mostly drawn up through happenstance between the colonizers, or in the case of large parts of the US, because they were bought up or conquered in war. Are you really going to tell me that there are larger cultural differences between Manitoba and Minnesota than between Minnesota and Texas?
Or, for that matter, New Mexico and Chihuahua?
So these lines may represent nations, but definitely don't represent cultural unity. Not in America, but not even in Europe (just ask the Catalans).
But that is almost irrelevant compared to a more egregious problem in this way of looking at things. Let's assume that a nation does indeed represent a cohesive cultural unity. And let's assume that we agree our nation is governed according to judeo-christian values. This includes a set of rules on how to treat out fellow man. Should we not extend this treatment to fellow men from foreign nations? At the very least such prime rules as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill"? So should our government not act accordingly?
|
On May 23 2019 03:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 02:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why?
As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law. At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy? Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs? Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly. So why does a line on the map delimit when the government should treat someone morally and when it shouldn't? Aren't there some edicts that transcend these lines on the map? I find this fixation on squiggles on the map quite interesting. So if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of Mexico, it is acceptable to you that the government do so. But if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of New Mexico, it would not be acceptable to you? And we should probably discuss what "the best interest of the nation" is, but lets just assume for the sake of this argument that the "greater good" outweighs the annihilation of New Mexico. It's not the lines on the map that matter so much as what the lines tend to represent: groupings of peoples that adhere to common sets of values and rules -- ie nations. This is part and parcel of the concept of the social contract. A nation bands together and forms a government in large part to form a common defense against any outsider who would threaten their values and way of life. The government is then responsible for promoting the interests of the people it represents in a realm that has minimal rules (indeed, the existence of any rules in this realm is a fairly recent development), which is in stark contrast to the conditions within society itself. In short, the intranational realm is materially different from the international realm, which is why different considerations apply for how to act. Except that this is quite explicitly not true for most post-colonial nations... and in fact for plenty of European nations too. Post-colonial nations, including the US, have borders mostly drawn up through happenstance between the colonizers, or in the case of large parts of the US, because they were bought up or conquered in war. Are you really going to tell me that there are larger cultural differences between Manitoba and Minnesota than between Minnesota and Texas? Or, for that matter, New Mexico and Chihuahua? So these lines may represent nations, but definitely don't represent cultural unity. Not in America, but not even in Europe (just ask the Catalans).
I said that borders tend to represent nations. Not that they always strictly do. There are clearly many instances where one or more nations is thrown into one borders of one state. What we see there is one of two scenarios. Either the nations agree to a common set of values by which they will be governed, or they don't. The states that fail are the ones where there is insufficient internal cohesion on this point, which proves my oft-made points regarding the importance of national integrity and the harm that multiculturalism can cause.
But that is almost irrelevant compared to a more egregious problem in this way of looking at things. Let's assume that a nation does indeed represent a cohesive cultural unity. And let's assume that we agree our nation is governed according to judeo-christian values. This includes a set of rules on how to treat out fellow man. Should we not extend this treatment to fellow men from foreign nations? At the very least such prime rules as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill"? So should our government not act accordingly?
This is a really puerile take on judeo-christian values that has no basis in historical fact and little basis in religious dogma.
|
On May 23 2019 03:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 03:46 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 02:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2019 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2019 00:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 23 2019 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 23:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
[quote]
At what point is an immoral foreign policy option too immoral for you? Or are you actually going to argue that there is no such thing as an immoral foreign policy?
Certain actions could certainly be too immoral for me. But again, and per my post above, framing foreign policy in terms of morality is the wrong approach both conceptually and empirically. I understand that you don't want to pursue "good" morality as its own ultimate end and I understand thinking a country should pursue its own interests ahead of the interests of other countries. For a small country like Norway, what is good for the world is more obviously also good for us, so it's easier to adopt a position that can to a greater degree be considered both good and self-serving. (I mean, I think a lot of the US's strong-arming has been counter-productive, but as stupid as Vietnam or the Iraq invasion were, they still make a whole lot more sense than if Norway were to launch similar attacks.) However, it sounds like you are arguing that it should not be a factor. That's where you lose me. You've consistently been saying this for a long period of time in politics threads, so I have to believe that it's a belief you have, but it's inconsistent with the belief that certain actions can be too immoral - unless the only reason why you find certain actions too immoral is that the international backlash would become so severe that the action was no longer in your self-interest.. Empirically, it's not really a factor. As you point out in your post, the deterrent isn't the inherent morality of the action, but the international backlash that the state might incur if it acts immorally. There's no shortage of shitty things that the US or any other major country does on the world stage. When you dive into the decisionmaking process behind any of those actions, what you tend to see are the state actors being more concerned with whether they can get away with what they want to do rather than whether what they want to do is actually moral. This is what I mean when I say that, empirically, states act amorally. As to whether states should consider morality as a factor or even an ultimate end of their foreign policy, that's a more complicated question. Right now, I would say no. We live in an imperfect, multipolar world with competing norms, values, and cultures. If a particular country wants its norms, values, and culture to win out and survive, then it probably is going to have to do some shitty things along the way to ensure its ascendance. So while I might prefer that states act morally and always do the right thing, it's an impractical reality at this point in time. So should morality factor into internal affairs? Do you feel it is the government's duty to take moral actions in internal affairs, if not in foreign affairs? Yes, morality necessarily factors into domestic/internal affairs, both for government actors and for private actors, as a consequence of limited government. Minimal regulation -- ie maximizing individual freedom -- starts to break down when people behave badly. So why does a line on the map delimit when the government should treat someone morally and when it shouldn't? Aren't there some edicts that transcend these lines on the map? I find this fixation on squiggles on the map quite interesting. So if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of Mexico, it is acceptable to you that the government do so. But if it were in the best interest of the nation to annihilate all inhabitants of New Mexico, it would not be acceptable to you? And we should probably discuss what "the best interest of the nation" is, but lets just assume for the sake of this argument that the "greater good" outweighs the annihilation of New Mexico. It's not the lines on the map that matter so much as what the lines tend to represent: groupings of peoples that adhere to common sets of values and rules -- ie nations. This is part and parcel of the concept of the social contract. A nation bands together and forms a government in large part to form a common defense against any outsider who would threaten their values and way of life. The government is then responsible for promoting the interests of the people it represents in a realm that has minimal rules (indeed, the existence of any rules in this realm is a fairly recent development), which is in stark contrast to the conditions within society itself. In short, the intranational realm is materially different from the international realm, which is why different considerations apply for how to act. Except that this is quite explicitly not true for most post-colonial nations... and in fact for plenty of European nations too. Post-colonial nations, including the US, have borders mostly drawn up through happenstance between the colonizers, or in the case of large parts of the US, because they were bought up or conquered in war. Are you really going to tell me that there are larger cultural differences between Manitoba and Minnesota than between Minnesota and Texas? Or, for that matter, New Mexico and Chihuahua? So these lines may represent nations, but definitely don't represent cultural unity. Not in America, but not even in Europe (just ask the Catalans). I said that borders tend to represent nations. Not that they always strictly do. There are clearly many instances where one or more nations is thrown into one borders of one state. What we see there is one of two scenarios. Either the nations agree to a common set of values by which they will be governed, or they don't. The states that fail are the ones where there is insufficient internal cohesion on this point, which proves my oft-made points regarding the importance of national integrity and the harm that multiculturalism can cause. Show nested quote +But that is almost irrelevant compared to a more egregious problem in this way of looking at things. Let's assume that a nation does indeed represent a cohesive cultural unity. And let's assume that we agree our nation is governed according to judeo-christian values. This includes a set of rules on how to treat out fellow man. Should we not extend this treatment to fellow men from foreign nations? At the very least such prime rules as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill"? So should our government not act accordingly? This is a really puerile take on judeo-christian values that has no basis in historical fact and little basis in religious dogma.
I apologize. Didn't really want to get into that. What i meant was that according to our culture there are certain rules that we should follow in order to behave morally. These are generally codified as law, and we have a government to stop people from "behaving badly", or punish them if they do. I wanted to make it a bit more explicit by invoking judeo-christian values, but clearly we disagree on what these are, so just ignore that. All we really need is that "bad" behaviour exists, and our government is empowered to stop people from behaving badly.
Now you say that it is entirely okay for the government to empower specific people to act badly towards people of other nations. And not even because the people of the other nation are acting badly themselves, but merely because it is "in the nation's self-interest" to do so. And this is justified, because these people are "not of our nation" and thus not protected by our laws. I agree that this may be legally justified, because there are indeed no supra-national laws, nor any entity capable of enforcing them (at least not on countries with the clout of the USA).
But legal justification is somewhat irrelevant, when we are discussing what the government "ought" to do. You seem to think that *everything* is justified as long as the nation can get away with it. That seems strange. Is it justified at a personal level too? Am I justified in doing *anything* as long as I can get away with it? Sure, I, Acrofales, am legally bound by the laws of my country, but you seem to think that as long as I don't get caught, I am totally justified in doing anything I please. And what I *ought* to do is entirely irrelevant.
Now at a personal level that seems to lead to a particularly unpleasant distopia, and I don't really see how that doesn't extend to a national level as well. But I might again have misunderstood something.
|
On May 23 2019 03:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote + And let's assume that we agree our nation is governed according to judeo-christian values. This includes a set of rules on how to treat out fellow man. Should we not extend this treatment to fellow men from foreign nations? At the very least such prime rules as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill"? So should our government not act accordingly? This is a really puerile take on judeo-christian values that has no basis in historical fact and little basis in religious dogma.
Huh really? I thought those were well, part of The Ten Commandments. So, what do you think would be a take on judeo-christian values that has basis in historical fact and little basis in religious dogma?
|
If people like xDaunt and Dangers are so determined to tell us that the Democrats are making a mistake in talking about Trump, money laundering, and Russia, does that then mean they think the opposite?
|
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
