TTI Forums

I am reading John LeCarre’s novel right now Constant Gardener, a bit of a challenging read – too much character dialog. One of his characters brings up a point that we, as humans, have an obligation to shun and/or actively reform nation states that are immoral. The position has gotten me thinking about how the Taggart brain trust might feel about this topic?

Is there a universal definition for the concept of an ethical state? Le Carre frames a few elements:

• Enjoyment of personal property and personal safety
  Evenly and fairly enforced rule of law
  Opportunity for personal growth and social advancement
  Accessible mechanisms to reform government.

In the spirit of multiculturalism, are all these points valid? Are there more things a state should be? Is there a universal set of criteria, or do the differences create the unique flavor of a culture?

Do we have an obligation to passively and/or actively resist unethical states? In other words, if we perceive a state to lack one or more of the “universally” expected qualities, do we have a moral imperative to act?

hmmm. Well, moral imperative eh.

Most nation states and people in general act in such a way as to advance their own sence of wellness. Take for example the US. The US has two nations before it that are veiwed as ethicly poor:
1)Iraq
2)North Korea

Now what does the ethical imperative decide about these states?
They are bad.
Great, but what should we do?
Well, both may possess WMD.
Ok?
Well thats bad.
Annnnnndddd?
Well look junior, North Korea is a shit hole, lets just make sure they don't fire a nuke at anyone.
And Iraq?
Oh those guys are evil sons of bitches who may have WMD, may harbour terrorist, and produce much of the worlds opium. We gotta get those guys.......oh and they oil too hehe.

People and nation states don't act in altruistic manners just out moral or ethical reasons. Think about it on a more personal level. The US has many people who live at or below the poverty line. $15 a month would help one of those families get by for that month (assuming they are using government assistance also, ramin noodles are cheep but not that cheap), at any rate. So here we sit with our bellies full, the TV on, playing a game in our heated homes. Moraly and Ethicly we are greedy selfish bastards who would rather waste money on a GAME than help out at the church soup kitchen.
It is well and good to talk about the greater good and social ethics and all that shit, but in the end we strive to engage in activities that release dopamine and seretonin while avoiding those things that make us want to die (though the pleasure chemicals can be so powerfull that we can be fooled into striving for things that cause pain in order to achieve the pleasure). Humans are very selfish, its in our genetic coding. If we weren't we would have died out long ago to those other species whom we gave all we had to help.
That said we are also social creatures and will engage in activities that help us feel good about ourselves and that might elicit others to say how we should feel so darn good about ourselves. If I start a save the Omber foundation and get 30 people telling me what a visionary I am I'm gonna feel great.

But how about a real life example of something that looks on the surface to be truely altruistic.
I have to take a bus to get to the main hospital in Korea. The bus cost about $5 one way. I get tickets from my unit and the last time I went up I happened to have gotten an extra ticket. I planned on saving this ticket for some undefined future use. The first bus in the morning however runs before the ticket booth is open, so you either have a tocket or you pay cash when you get off.
I like to get off the bus (and airplanes for that matter) last because I hate fighting with people over who gets to go and who doesn't. Anyway this one guy comes up and all he has is a twenty so the bus driver has him sit to the side. Bummer right. So I gave him my extra ticket and he got off the bus.
1)I have no idea who this guy is, even to this day
2)he was male, so I wasn't flirting or going for that smile women give you...you know the one
3)he had the money, just not exact change

So why did I do this, because Im a nice guy? No, on some level I did it because I gain pleasure thinking that he will go around talking about the nice deed that was done, but on another level my higher brain is fooled into thinking what a great guy I am, my lower brain is doing the fooling. So next time Im short with the damn pizza hut girl who cant phuking speak english I can remind myself what a great guy I am and write off this incedent to a bad day.

Selfish.

How about another example?
I'm the alternate unit mail clerk which means I have access to the mail room. This is important as people enjoy receiving packages. Furthure more I enjoy receiving packages, and in a timely manner I might add. So we are doing the afternoon PT session and one of the girls ask me if I'll get her package for her, after PT.
Now ethicly speaking I should treat her as I myself would like to be treated. The action would take five minutes and would make her happy.
So why did I say no?
I told her she would have to wait until I got to work, what I did not tell her was that I wanted to go back to my room and look around the new RMR patch
She persisted, and I maintained my ass hole facade......until she provided the appropriate incentive, $20. No shit, less than five minutes of work would net me $20. I agreed, and I took her $20. That was certainly not an ethical action. I did explain to her that she should lowball her incentives first and move up incrementally until success is acheived, I would have done it for $10. So I taught her something, which was an ethical act, but it also made me seem smart and fiscally savvy in the eyes of this poor soul ($20 poorer anyway).You know as a matter of fact this seems to be an evil situation, on the surface it looks as I made her pay to get her own mail. It should be noted that I never said anything like pay me and Ill do it, I stood firm on Ill do it when I get to work. What can I say Im a big softy for the colour green.

At any rate, my point is that humans are designed to be greedy little bastards well hidden behind a facade of ethical and moral right. All we really want is to feel good, whatever that may intel for each individual.

WTF was the question again

LOL Alaph, you should give her the $20 back, you never know how far that story will travel and how distorted it might become. In the end, that risk is much greater than the $20 reward. The down side for you could be getting a fine or busted down in rank, perhaps even a dishonorable (unlikely in this recruiting climate) none of which is worth $20. If it is... come on over and look me up someday, I’ll give you $20 if you let me punch you just once.

$5 to ride the bus? Dang how far does it take you? 50 miles? They probably pay higher insurance premiums what with all the land mines on the road. I like to think that the “pay it forward” thing is bonus karma too.

Certainly individual people would have such divergent perspectives that any form of norming would be impossible. What about countries? Shouldn't the majority kind of average things out, creating morays and folkways?

I like your examples, Iran is even more tangled. At least in Iraq and North Korea, the international community could claim evil dictator, these being governments that the populous is mainly not supporting. But Iran is a plural theocracy, just a bunch of different Mullahs, with zealously loyal flocks or followers. They are pig ignorant, and really screwed up in the head. Should we be attempting to straighten them out? Or should we let them develop their own nuclear weapons?

Hmmm, well, $20, we'll see.
The bus trip takes two hours on the highway, might not mean much but its like going from Birmingham to Atlanta

As to the idea of countries, its not so much a matter of fixing evil as fixing evil that threatens something we want (like oil in Iraqs case, or ourselves in Russias case) North Korea has the bomb, but who cares about the North Koreans. If we realy did play the whole just nation thing we would go in there and liberate those people.
example
Iraq North Korea
Secret Police yes yes
Harms citizens yes yes
currupt govern yes yes
cause of impoverished state debatable yes
WMD debatable yes
oil yes no

so who did we go after? and Im not making a point about greed Im making a point about incentives to do the "right thing".
Ethics and morals are a mask we use o help justify actions and also push others in a direction we think is best.
Look at another example:
Marijuanne is evil. We don't like it, it screws with your brain. There are no medical uses for it and all pot heads should be in jail for a long time with out parole.
Alchohol? Thats good shit, I love a beer during the footbball game.
These are arbitrary laws justified, origonaly at leaste, on ethical grounds. Facts do not come into play. Who cares that a pot head is less likely to beat the shit out of his kid than an alchoholic. Its tradition.
So no I don't think that social ethics have any bearing on a moral imperative. Ethics and morals are reflections of the societies beleif.
Murder is evil right? Well not when your killing someone who mastermined an attack on the twin towers.

So phukit, there should be no rules? Well not so fast there, just because they are a relative reflection of society and are really self severing doesn't mean they serve no purpose. If all ethical judgements served one person alone we would hunt down that person and hang em. Sociatal rules, called ethics and morals and laws oh my, are designed to serve the most people possible, like realy bad TV or McDonalds. Thats not to say that we don't bend the rules to fit our own needs IF we think we can get away with it.

In otherwords I don't think any country has an obligation/does act on purly ethical grounds, they use them as justifications certainly, but not as reasons.

Right, well $5 for that bus trip is a really good value then.

There might be one other factor in that North Korea calculus…. Like say CHINA ! Looking back on my history lessons, the last few times we went an played war games on the Asian main land the Chinese didn’t like that, and fought against the action.

In the book I’m reading, the character was the wife of an English diplomat in a Sub-Saharan African country. That country had less than zero political significance, and yet she felt an obligation to recognize and attempt to address the major issues she witnessed.

I guess your point is that there really is no common ground for nation states. The evidence definitely supports your position, but should there be?

Do you think there could possibly be a small group of states with unified ethics? Perhaps the EU as an example? I bet Max could weigh in on this question, Max Delorian where are you?

very good points.
I did forget the China Connection. As to joint ethical connections, lets return to Iraq.
Many countries did indeed help out the US on the grounds that this force of evil must be removed. Im sure there are many more historical examples of nation states working to gether for the higher good.
I still think the higher good is something benificial.