Personal Development

» Brian Tubbs - Nation-state Morality

In response to Nations & Individuals posted by pink101:

I guess what it boils down to is this...

Are the standards of right and wrong (particularly w/ respect to honesty) DIFFERENT for nation-states than they are for individuals? Is individual morality different from nation-state morality? If yes, should it be?

» Brian Tubbs - Hobbes

In response to General Washington was wrong then posted by pradocg:

By the way, it doesn't follow that in a secular society there is no covenant about lying because if that were the case we'd be in Hobbes' state of nature and it'd be everyone for himself for a life that would be "nasty, brutish, and short."

Well....i would say that this indeed DOES characterize some nations of the world.

» pradocg - Nation-state Morality

In response to Nation-state Morality posted by BrianTubbs:

From what I recall of catechism classes, the commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and that's been generalized to lying. That is, the commandment seems fairly specific to lying about something at issue. But the central point is that it is individuals that bear responsibility for lying, not groups or nations, if what we're talking about is divine sanctions. When it comes to nations--or tribes or groups--it's always someone who lies, but does so as an agent for the nation or group. And if the lie is a result of a policy decision, the individual can't be held responsible. For instance, not lying might well be treason of some sort. I really don't think lying applies to nations (and their agents); it has to do with individuals. And I don't think deception done as an agent is personal lying. The real difficulty is that we just aren't very clear on the notion of lying, and that's made more difficult by people who simplistically insist on applying individual standards to nations or groups. As for the question of whether nations will survive another century, say, I think multiculturalism has largely precluded that. What will survive are interest-groups and their associations.

-- posted by pradocg

» pink101 - Nation-state Morality

In response to Nation-state Morality posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"Are the standards of right and wrong (particularly w/ respect to honesty) DIFFERENT for nation-states than they are for individuals? Is individual morality different from nation-state morality? If yes, should it be?"
.
I think we need a good and clear definition of what it means to be a nation in relation to whatever else there is.
.
In the sense the doc is posing the idea, a nation is a group of people who think of themselves as being separate from the rest of the world. In the case of the birthing of the U.S.A., he seems to be saying that GW was an agent of that nation as it was being delivered to the people. You seem to be digging for strawberries here, Brian. The future destiny of millions of people was at stake--would our ancestors continue under the yoke of bondage to a monarch or would they break loose and form a sovereign society such as the world had not seen?
.
And, the way you're posing the question about 'morality' it seems we need a good and clear definition of what you mean by morality. Your questions beg a larger picture than some strategy being a lie. If the lies are of a nature that the leader's troops will be sacrificed for that which they would not otherwise do battle, then the lie is worse than immoral--it is a crime worthy of the most severe punishment.
.
Not to belabour the situation; but, the biggest lies that have been told by a leader are those that have been told to the American people by their president regarding the occupation of Iraq. We still do not know the truth about why we went into that war that has taken nearly 3,000 courageous men and women along with 30,000 injuries many of which are horrendous. The cost to future generations is now estimated to be $340,000.00 against every man, woman and child now living in the U.S.A. including the interest that will be paid to the shylocks.
.
In other words, there are real life issues at stake that are having an enormous impact on that precious little 8 year old girl in your home. Square that up with morality.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Nation-state Morality

In response to Nation-state Morality posted by pradocg:
.
"What will survive are interest-groups and their associations. "
.
Talcott Parsons, considered the nation to be the largest known group that qualified as such--until--he considered the super-national group. I think that is what we are seeing coming into view, a division of people according to a super-national group that cuts across national borders so that some people identify more with people in foreign lands than they do with their next door neighbors.
.
Here's a little on the man:
.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-905...
.

-- posted by pink101

» pradocg - Nation-state Morality

In response to Nation-state Morality posted by pink101:

I think pink101 is right on many of the point made, but I'd like to stress that Brian's questions seem to me to not quite come to grips with the issue of responsibility, to which I allude above. Lying is something that has ethical consequences for individuals, depending on the codes they adhere to, their beliefs, and so on. But deception--I won't say "lying"--doesn't have ethical consequences for nations, though it certainly has practical consequences. My point is that a person who lies is guilty of an ethical transgression; that's not true of nations, regardless of what we might wish for the U.N. to be and represent. The only way nations can be liars is if we count their agents as liars, and I tried to point out that won't work. If a nation agrees to something in a treaty, and its leaders fully intend to renege on their agreement, we'd have to work in a lot of personal stakes and dublicity to make it out that the agents are actually liars. If the nation reneges on the treaty, it does something wrong and perhaps unforgivable, but it hasn't lied.

-- posted by pradocg

» pink101 - Truth or Consequences

In response to Nation-state Morality posted by pradocg:

.
"... not quite come to grips with the issue of responsibility..."
.
Yeah. I'm reading a little book, Everything I needed to know, I learned from Shakespeare, by Laurie Maguire.
.
In the tragedy of Hamlet, Polonius is giving the father son talk to Leatres and he says, "This above all--to thine own self be true and then it must follow as the night the day, thou cans't then be false to no man."
.
The tragedy is all about lying. Shakesspeare teaches us the terrible mess that derives from a lie. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" is all about the murderous lie that resulted in the terrible tragedies of Hamlet.
.
Thinking about "the issue of responsibility" adds meaning to the idea of lying. It is the issue on which to focus.
.
The creation of a "dodge" in national relationships doesn't qualify as lying; but, misleading a nation based on information one knows to be false does. What are the consequences of such lies? In the case of Iraq. for example?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pradocg - Truth or Consequences

In response to Truth or Consequences posted by pink101:

The case you bring up is quite different; it is one where the president and company seem pretty clearly to have slipped from speaking as agents to speaking for themselves and their special-interest cronies. Alternatively, it could be they genuinely believed what they said to the country--it is possible, though I very much doubt it. Anyway, if they really did believe what they were saying, they weren't lying.

-- posted by pradocg

» pink101 - Just Let Things Ride?

In response to Truth or Consequences posted by pradocg:
.
But, if they weren't lying, why didn't just pull out and leave the country to fend for itself under Saddam's rule, but with the caveat that democratic elections be held within a year or two?
.
If they were lying, what were the possible motivations for their actions? Should they not be held accountable to their claims, you being the one who brought up responsibility? I'm just trying to play out the model to which you pointed.
.
It's nice to give people the benefit of the doubt. Except, in this case, there are great tragedies involved.
.
Should Americans just not discuss the subject and let things ride?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pradocg - Just Let Things Ride?

In response to Just Let Things Ride? posted by pink101:

It's not my business to comment on particular cases, especially one involving another country. I can say, in general terms, that assigning responsibility in the sort of case you have in mind is what impeachment proceedings are all about, and such proceedings might determine that individuals' convictions dictated policy, and they then acted as agents implementing that policy.

-- posted by pradocg