[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Are you trying to argue that “realism” is a good theory to predict how states will act or explain why they acted? Or are you trying to argue that “realism” should be used as a model by state decision makers to drive policy?
There’s a difference. [/quote]
The thread’s title refers to the relationship between morality and statecraft.
Variants of realism have analytical utility for predicting future state behavior and for critically examining past behavior. Like all tools, however, it has its limitations and should not be utilized dogmatically as a panacea.
Statecraft should be underpinned by realism, yes.[/quote]
So if a genocide increases the power of a state without overwhelming negative political consequences, that’s the course of action you would recommend its policy makers take, correct?
[/quote]
I won’t address an obvious straw man. Power calculations are tempered by international norms. Genocide is about as myopic as power maximizing behavior can be.[/quote]
Asking a hard question based on the premise you provided isn’t a straw man. Answer the question. [/quote]
It isn’t a hard question, it’s an irrelevant hypothetical that has no basis in reality. Genocide is never justified, much less a prudent policy maintaining and building state power. International norms alone demonstrate this.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Are you trying to argue that “realism” is a good theory to predict how states will act or explain why they acted? Or are you trying to argue that “realism” should be used as a model by state decision makers to drive policy?
There’s a difference. [/quote]
The thread’s title refers to the relationship between morality and statecraft.
Variants of realism have analytical utility for predicting future state behavior and for critically examining past behavior. Like all tools, however, it has its limitations and should not be utilized dogmatically as a panacea.
Statecraft should be underpinned by realism, yes.[/quote]
So if a genocide increases the power of a state without overwhelming negative political consequences, that’s the course of action you would recommend its policy makers take, correct?
[/quote]
I won’t address an obvious straw man. Power calculations are tempered by international norms. Genocide is about as myopic as power maximizing behavior can be.[/quote]
Asking a hard question based on the premise you provided isn’t a straw man. Answer the question. [/quote]
It isn’t a hard question, it’s an irrelevant hypothetical that has no basis in reality. Genocide is never justified, much less a prudent policy maintaining and building state power. International norms alone demonstrate this. [/quote]
It is a hard question and a pertinent one too. It’s one I’ve pondered myself many times. And it doesn’t have to be taken literally. It’s really a stand in scenario for examining what if any role morality should play in international relations - you know, the subject of this thread.
Premise 1, that human nature is unchanging goes against evolution. Human nature like evolution is constantly evolving and on some levels being selected for according to environment.
Since this is a premise and it is incorrect it seems a good bit of that Political/Financial Philosophy is wrong.
Some other things to think about regarding human nature is that the original ideas were coined by ancients like Socrates and Aristotle, whose ideas were intended to be rooted in biology and psychology… We don’t really have any coherent contemporary models of what human nature actually is considering other greats who thought on this were Philosophers like Descartes, Hobbes and Rousseau. Great thinkers but again they were going on some ancient knowledge which was mostly assumption. Lost of assumption based on religion rather than science.
Human nature, unless it has some coherent and contemporary definition based strictly on science is meaningless.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Premise 1, that human nature is unchanging goes against evolution. Human nature like evolution is constantly evolving and on some levels being selected for according to environment.
Since this is a premise and it is incorrect it seems a good bit of that Political/Financial Philosophy is wrong.
Some other things to think about regarding human nature is that the original ideas were coined by ancients like Socrates and Aristotle, whose ideas were intended to be rooted in biology and psychology… We don’t really have any coherent contemporary models of what human nature actually is considering other greats who thought on this were Philosophers like Descartes, Hobbes and Rousseau. Great thinkers but again they were going on some ancient knowledge which was mostly assumption. Lost of assumption based on religion rather than science.
Human nature, unless it has some coherent and contemporary definition based strictly on science is meaningless.
[/quote]
The literature of evolutionary psychology suggests that Homo Sapiens have a propensity for conflict and zero sum competition.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Premise 1, that human nature is unchanging goes against evolution. Human nature like evolution is constantly evolving and on some levels being selected for according to environment.
Since this is a premise and it is incorrect it seems a good bit of that Political/Financial Philosophy is wrong.
Some other things to think about regarding human nature is that the original ideas were coined by ancients like Socrates and Aristotle, whose ideas were intended to be rooted in biology and psychology… We don’t really have any coherent contemporary models of what human nature actually is considering other greats who thought on this were Philosophers like Descartes, Hobbes and Rousseau. Great thinkers but again they were going on some ancient knowledge which was mostly assumption. Lost of assumption based on religion rather than science.
Human nature, unless it has some coherent and contemporary definition based strictly on science is meaningless.
[/quote]
The literature of evolutionary psychology suggests that Homo Sapiens have a propensity for conflict and zero sum competition. [/quote]
I agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are in a constant state of evolving.
That we know we are inclined to conflict and elimination of our competition should and does tell many of us what sort of path we are on, because we have some sort of volition that is capable of over-riding natural inclinations should inform us of what is morally right and what is sustainable.
We live in a world where Markets tell us more is always better, when more is actually unsustainable given the whole. Holy books tell us to have more children, and to conduct ourselves this and that way, which is also unsustainable. You see it, anyone willing to be Philosopher like and able to entertain scary ideas can see it clearly. As you seem to.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Premise 1, that human nature is unchanging goes against evolution. Human nature like evolution is constantly evolving and on some levels being selected for according to environment.
Since this is a premise and it is incorrect it seems a good bit of that Political/Financial Philosophy is wrong.
Some other things to think about regarding human nature is that the original ideas were coined by ancients like Socrates and Aristotle, whose ideas were intended to be rooted in biology and psychology… We don’t really have any coherent contemporary models of what human nature actually is considering other greats who thought on this were Philosophers like Descartes, Hobbes and Rousseau. Great thinkers but again they were going on some ancient knowledge which was mostly assumption. Lost of assumption based on religion rather than science.
Human nature, unless it has some coherent and contemporary definition based strictly on science is meaningless.
[/quote]
The literature of evolutionary psychology suggests that Homo Sapiens have a propensity for conflict and zero sum competition. [/quote]
And anyone who denies this is not only wrong but extremely dangerous. Modern liberalism is a form of Utopianism that aims to abolish the “friend/enemy distinction”. Like all attempts to rid the world of conflict it only increases the level and intensity of conflict. There is no war more universal in scope and fanatical than the “war to end all wars.” Liberalism is at war with human nature itself. Anyone who is opposed to the liberal concept of pluralism and diversity is portrayed as “inhuman” and against mankind. In attempting to abolish the friend/enemy distinction liberalism merely redraws it. Essentially it reverses it - the enemy becomes the friend and the friend become the enemy.
Edit: just to clarify what I mean by the reversal of the friend/enemy distinction: for the pacifist Islamic fundamentalists are not the enemy. They were “provoked” by us - specifically, by nationalists seeking to protect the nation. So for the Israeli pacifist Netanyahu becomes the enemy and Hamas becomes the friend. Or for the American pacifist George Bush is the enemy and al Qaeda is the friend - or at least a potential friend who is only an enemy because of the “meddling” of the real enemy: Bush.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Premise 1, that human nature is unchanging goes against evolution. Human nature like evolution is constantly evolving and on some levels being selected for according to environment.
Since this is a premise and it is incorrect it seems a good bit of that Political/Financial Philosophy is wrong.
Some other things to think about regarding human nature is that the original ideas were coined by ancients like Socrates and Aristotle, whose ideas were intended to be rooted in biology and psychology… We don’t really have any coherent contemporary models of what human nature actually is considering other greats who thought on this were Philosophers like Descartes, Hobbes and Rousseau. Great thinkers but again they were going on some ancient knowledge which was mostly assumption. Lost of assumption based on religion rather than science.
Human nature, unless it has some coherent and contemporary definition based strictly on science is meaningless.
[/quote]
The literature of evolutionary psychology suggests that Homo Sapiens have a propensity for conflict and zero sum competition. [/quote]
And anyone who denies this is not only wrong but extremely dangerous. Modern liberalism is a form of Utopianism that aims to abolish the “friend/enemy distinction”. Like all attempts to rid the world of conflict it only increases the level and intensity of conflict. There is no war more universal in scope and fanatical than the “war to end all wars.” Liberalism is at war with human nature itself. Anyone who is opposed to the liberal concept of pluralism and diversity is portrayed as “inhuman” and against mankind. In attempting to abolish the friend/enemy distinction liberalism merely redraws it. Essentially it reverses it - the enemy becomes the friend and the friend become the enemy.
Edit: just to clarify what I mean by the reversal of the friend/enemy distinction: for the pacifist Islamic fundamentalists are not the enemy. They were “provoked” by us - specifically, by nationalists seeking to protect the nation. So for the Israeli pacifist Netanyahu becomes the enemy and Hamas becomes the friend. Or for the American pacifist George Bush is the enemy and al Qaeda is the friend - or at least a potential friend who is only an enemy because of the “meddling” of the real enemy: Bush.[/quote]
Everything with you is so extreme. Anyone who disagrees that people are a certain way are dangerous? WTF? How do you come to that conclusion? You just declare it and hope people agree?
Modern liberalism is a form of Utopian blaziblah? Modern liberalism also brought about civil rights. Or what? Would you have us continue to live in such a way where Jim Crow laws are justified because we are in competition, and white men are scared of black men?
It’s our volition and our understanding as humans that allows us to progress past our idiot inclinations.
Not at all. Utopianism of any kind is extreme and dogmatic. I reject any political philosophy that claims to be able to solve the age old problems such as man’s propensity for conflict. I take a rational approach to limiting conflict.
Not everyone with liberal tendencies is dangerous. What I’m saying is that liberalism as an ideology is dangerous.
I’ve given a good account of why I believe it to be true.
I don’t know why you are having trouble following my argument. It’s relatively simple. Africans should never have been brought to America as slaves to begin with. Then you never would have had slavery, a civil war, race riots etc etc. The benefits of a closed society are impossible to deny.
Firstly, it’s not working out too well is it? People are killing each other all over the world on a daily basis for the most irrational reasons. The enlightenment promised peace, prosperity and progress. It delivered the French Revolution, Bolshevism, Nazism, The First World War and the Second which was the greatest conflict in human history. Far from ushering in peace, the industrial revolution and science merely enabled man to kill on an industrial scale. And what did dogmatic rationalism bring about? The nihilism and insanity of “mass movements” such as Nazism, Communism and yes - liberalism. What did the cultural revolution of the 1960’s bring? For the West it brought about Nietzsche’s “last man”
Not at all. Utopianism of any kind is extreme and dogmatic. I reject any political philosophy that claims to be able to solve the age old problems such as man’s propensity for conflict. I take a rational approach to limiting conflict.
Not everyone with liberal tendencies is dangerous. What I’m saying is that liberalism as an ideology is dangerous.
I’ve given a good account of why I believe it to be true.
I don’t know why you are having trouble following my argument. It’s relatively simple. Africans should never have been brought to America as slaves to begin with. Then you never would have had slavery, a civil war, race riots etc etc. The benefits of a closed society are impossible to deny.
Firstly, it’s not working out too well is it? People are killing each other all over the world on a daily basis for the most irrational reasons. The enlightenment promised peace, prosperity and progress. It delivered the French Revolution, Bolshevism, Nazism, The First World War and the Second which was the greatest conflict in human history. Far from ushering in peace, the industrial revolution and science merely enabled man to kill on an industrial scale. And what did dogmatic rationalism bring about? The nihilism and insanity of “mass movements” such as Nazism, Communism and yes - liberalism. What did the cultural revolution of the 1960’s bring? For the West it brought about Nietzsche’s “last man”
From what I can see the most dangerous things for the worlds future is dogma. The mass movements you talk about can instead be categorized by people with dogmatic views who push their agenda. With groups like the Nazi’s they had dogma about Neitzsche’s works, it’s evident in Nazi works in Eugenics in which they blindly assign value to certain traits without any consideration to what environment they would live in. It was just, this is good, that is bad…
Most Dogma’s are similar, assigning good and bad according to a then contemporary environment or ideal that is unchanging. When everything we know about the world and nature is that it always changes, and is always in a state of change.
Interesting! It seems to corroborate what I’m saying. [/quote]
“Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity - too bad for you.”
From what I can see the most dangerous things for the worlds future is dogma.
[/quote]
I agree. And liberalism is no less dogmatic than any other universal utopian ideology.
Now you’re conflating dogma with value judgements. All of us must make value judgements every moment of our lives even if we pretend we don’t.
[/quote]
I don’t believe I am.
What happened with Eugenics is what happens when Dogma and Science are intermixed. Eugenics asserted that there were superior traits associated with a specific race, that was based on nothing but Dogma/ the belief of a superior race/pure beings that could be refined and the norm were they able to wipe out all the others what were polluting the potential breed. It was Dogma because ideas were handed down by authorities who deemed the bullshit true.
When you look at N. Korea you see similar but different ideas about the leadership there, calling a man some sort of exalted Godly being. Again, it’s bullshit handed down by authority figures and the populace believing the bullshit.
I see religion the same way when people assert this and that are true because God says so in cases where science and education tell us otherwise.
Imagine if N. Korea were able to blow up the rest of the world. Who would be God?
Nazi race theories were not “science” they were pseudoscience.
[quote]
Eugenics asserted that there were superior traits associated with a specific race, that was based on nothing but Dogma/ the belief of a superior race/pure beings that could be refined and the norm were they able to wipe out all the others what were polluting the potential breed. It was Dogma because ideas were handed down by authorities who deemed the bullshit true.
When you look at N. Korea you see similar but different ideas about the leadership there, calling a man some sort of exalted Godly being. Again, it’s bullshit handed down by authority figures and the populace believing the bullshit.
I see religion the same way when people assert this and that are true because God says so in cases where science and education tell us otherwise.
Imagine if N. Korea were able to blow up the rest of the world. Who would be God? [/quote]
I think you’re trying to conflate political dogma with religious dogma. Religion only needs to be dogmatic when it has a central authority - theocracy: a priestly caste that claims to represent God on earth. It is the political that is dogmatic not religion itself. That doesn’t mean that religion is whatever you want it to be or that there are no essential truths - it just means that people who claim to hold such truths don’t necessarily have the right to force them on others.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It all depends on context. In international relations morality should not apply - at least it should not apply wherever it conflicts with objectives. Domestically is a different question and more difficult to answer. The domestic politik is warfare too but it is bracketed warfare in the sense that it is confined within limits. When these limits are exceeded and actual violence breaks out then morality must leave the room - again, at least where it conflicts with the objective/s.[/quote]
Morality should always apply. Give an example when it conflicts with objectives.
Nazi race theories were not “science” they were pseudoscience.
[quote]
Eugenics asserted that there were superior traits associated with a specific race, that was based on nothing but Dogma/ the belief of a superior race/pure beings that could be refined and the norm were they able to wipe out all the others what were polluting the potential breed. It was Dogma because ideas were handed down by authorities who deemed the bullshit true.
When you look at N. Korea you see similar but different ideas about the leadership there, calling a man some sort of exalted Godly being. Again, it’s bullshit handed down by authority figures and the populace believing the bullshit.
I see religion the same way when people assert this and that are true because God says so in cases where science and education tell us otherwise.
Imagine if N. Korea were able to blow up the rest of the world. Who would be God? [/quote]
I think you’re trying to conflate political dogma with religious dogma. Religion only needs to be dogmatic when it has a central authority - theocracy: a priestly caste that claims to represent God on earth. It is the political that is dogmatic not religion itself. That doesn’t mean that religion is whatever you want it to be or that there are no essential truths - it just means that people who claim to hold such truths don’t necessarily have the right to force them on others.[/quote]
All organized religion is dogmatic on a level that it has to respect authorities ideas of what God wants. Other religions that believe in a God or whose cosmological views rely on Gods judgement are also dogmatic in that God is still an authority, it’s just connected to the individual and how they posit Gods commands.
With organized religion you have to appease both God and the views of whoever the authority might be who is in charge of interpreting and telling you what is heads and tails. Funny how that changes so drastically with the times given it’s supposed to be a rigid set of rules. Your great great grand daddy’s priest would tell us all we are going to hell, but your current priest or whatever says something completely different.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It all depends on context. In international relations morality should not apply - at least it should not apply wherever it conflicts with objectives. Domestically is a different question and more difficult to answer. The domestic politik is warfare too but it is bracketed warfare in the sense that it is confined within limits. When these limits are exceeded and actual violence breaks out then morality must leave the room - again, at least where it conflicts with the objective/s.[/quote]
Morality should always apply. Give an example when it conflicts with objectives.[/quote]
Strategic objectives must take precedence over morality otherwise the objective becomes morality itself which is insane. The objective of d-day was to secure a beachhead in Normandy and kill some Germans. Any morality comes second and has to conform to those objectives.