Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → America: Foreign policy of moral virtue or self interest?
I see this debate implicitly coming up at various times, so lets talk about it upfront. What's your opinion? I think it's self-interest, and moral virtue is used to sugar coat that self-interest. In fact, not only is this true of America, it's true of every country, in every place and time.
yeah but we're generally nicer than other major world powers, in that we sponsor development.
anyhow we're about to launch the Foriegn Policy of Dumbassedness
> TheYell wrote:
> yeah but we're generally nicer than other major world powers, in that we sponsor development.
anyhow we're about to launch the Foriegn Policy of Dumbassedness
Yeah, true, at least in some respects. The idea being that increased economic capacity in other countries friendly and strategic to us will benefit our own economy with trade.
"yeah but we're generally nicer than other major world powers"
Yeah, damn those commie chinese invading countries for oil!!
Hmm I actually think with the Bush administration foreign policy has become alot more morally idealistic than say the Cold War days.
I see nothing wrong with enlightened self interest, however, all I see is basic, short sighted, self interest.
self interest
Euro style foreign policy has gotton us to the point of NoKo, Iran and the Entire mess on the African Continent. European powers cant even get the former Yugoslav republics to play nice.
Maybe, just maybe, its time the US focuses on S. and C. America Again, and plays nuetral in the middle East (except Israel, Iraq), and for sure Africa to Europe.
Imagine Iran running free w/o US Carriers in the Persian Gulf ?
"Maybe, just maybe, its time the US focuses on S. and C. America Again"
If you mean Sex and Cannabis, I agree!
I disagree with the rest though. The EU has no authority over the Balkan republics, and therefore their problems can't possibly be blamed on the EU. However, with the prospect of being part of the EU, those states follow the EU's directions better then ever before (they had zero control in the days of Yugoslavia, and little control after that). So it's more or less a false arguement.
Self-interest (benefits of joining the EU) is a good way to motivate those non-EU countries to change for the better. Certainly works better than dropping bombs on them.
"Imagine Iran running free w/o US Carriers in the Persian Gulf ?"
Self interest.
Iran is as much of a threat as North Korea; ultimately if they do the things that the USA says they would do without the US Military watching over them then their lives, their worlds, would end.
to the original question:
a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B
"Yeah, damn those commie chinese invading countries for oil!!"
So who is currently invading other countries for oil right now?
That would depend on who you ask. Ask the Iraqis or Iranians and they'll say America, ask the Georgians and they'll say Russia, ask the Africans and they would say everyone if they were smart enough to realise the mining deals were not in their favour.
I can't speak for the Russians, but I have serious doubts about the motivation for the war in Iraq being oil interest. Many people love to throw around "War for Oil!" when they're bitching about the war, but I would need to see some compelling proof to sway my own opinion.
@ Shipman.
Here is the guilty parties:
The leftist controlled Media Elite, and university professors.
If you ask the common folk, they would say, Gas and Oil is pretty expensive. You take over a country for oil and pay triple for it 5 years later ?
shipman - that oil comment was SARCASM 
"If you ask the common folk, they would say, Gas and Oil is pretty expensive. You take over a country for oil and pay triple for it 5 years later ?"
I'd invade a country for it's resources, and to forcefully create a future business market, and then I'd raise the price of the aforementioned resources for the purpose of plausible deniability.
Then I would be able to use the resources however I saw fit without having to worry about voters moaning about how all my tanks have turbo chargers and while they have all been forced to give up their 4X4's.
Genius.
1. Oil companies make record profits
2. The US government is increasing the taxes on those profits
3. Demand for oil is increasing in certain parts of the world
If you are searching for a self-interest motivation for invading Iraq, there are reasons for doing so other than reducing oil prices. Actually, with the government taxing oil, it doesn't seem like they are even motivated by reducing oil in the first place.
i don't know how justin but i agree with you, it is 110% self interest nothing more nothing less
although i disagree that every nation does the same, there have been some who don't 
Even in answering self interest vs moral virtue, you only cloud the issue. Even if self interest is the motivation, the collective morality can still be served. At the same time, moral values can result in one's own gratification. In other words, this is stupid.
What about having self-interest and moral virtue working together? One needn't for the sake of moral virtue have no self interest and always place his needs or desires ahead of others'. Likewise, it needn't necessarily be a world were self-interest rules and the 'common good' of the poor is sacrificed for the self-interest of the rich. All the social conflict in the world is actually very unnecessary. All we need is for everyone to treat everyone else with the 'dignity' as being equal - not equally paid, but equally respected.
Those who don't treat me with the dignity of being equal members of the human race - whether they are richer or poorer than me, more powerful or less powerful than me - I simply don't care to know.
If the maid disrespects me and my time by showing up late or doing not showing up for work, I lose interest in maintaining the working relationship with her. Similarly, if a bigwig company manager with whom I would like to start a business relationship wastes my time by having me wait in the office's waiting lounge for an unreasonable length of time, I lose interest in following through with the deal. I will simply cease to like either the maid or the bigwig, and I only make people I LIKE richer. But I do try to treat everyone with the SAME level of dignity whether they are the maid or a bigwig.
It's entirely irrelevant if morality and self-interest are working together. I am asking about the primary motivation. Even if our self-interest is also moral, would we be moral if it were costly to our self-interest?
"The EU has no authority over the Balkan republics, and therefore their problems can't possibly be blamed on the EU. However, with the prospect of being part of the EU, those states follow the EU's directions better then ever before (they had zero control in the days of Yugoslavia, and little control after that). So it's more or less a false arguement."
Oddly enough, although the EUROPEAN Union also has no authority over Israel, Korea, Myanmar, Iraq, or North America, the one place on earth they refuse to meddle IS...
> Justinian I wrote:
> It's entirely irrelevant if morality and self-interest are working together. I am asking about the primary motivation. Even if our self-interest is also moral, would we be moral if it were costly to our self-interest?
Morality defines what the self interest is, though. Remember, internal interests are still interests. If you violate a moral, you'll have to live with the fact that you violated that moral forever.
But at the same time, self interest defines what the moral is. If, when in conflict, one finally decides to violate their morlas, do they look their morals in the face and say "screw you?" No, they rationalize. For a split second (or longer, depending on the issue), they reason that, in this instance, violation of that moral is acceptable for one reason or another.
So yeah, Justinian, this whole debate is stupid. 
Imperial Forum → Politics → America: Foreign policy of moral virtue or self interest?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.