John: Your e-mail of today, Monday, is excellent. (Of course, you are wrong in some of your assumptions about the morality of nations, etc., but don't forget, John, you're still a young man with plenty of time to grow.)
I think the question of the morality or the lack of it among nations has been established long ago by the actual behavior of of every state that
has been in existence since pre-historic Egypt, don't you think so?
In her fine book, THE MARCH OF FOLLY, Barbara Tuchman writes in detail of the preparation for the First World War by the German Generals. In conversations among themselves and to their associates, they stated that Germany's superiority as a nation entitled them to conquer all of Europe as a "beginning" of world domination by Germany. The morality of such a course of action never seemed to enter their minds. Of course, this thought was frequently repeated by Hitler in the 1930's. The question of ethics or the morality of their proposals was absent there also.
On page 5, in the book quoted above, Touchman writes: "For 2,500 years, political philosophers from Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton Nietzsche and Marks have devoted their thinking to the major issues of ethics and morals of nations, as well as to the rights of man. Few, except Machiavelli, who was concerned with government as it is, not as it should be, bothered with such things as the mere folly of ethics, although this folly has been, and is today, a chronic and pervasive problem."
In a speech to his friends, Otto von Bismark once stated: "Altruism? Among nations there is no such thing as altruism!" And Charles De Gaulle stated flatly: "The Foreign Policy of France is what is good for France!"
I believe the topic of "The morals and ethics among nations" is a good subject for discussion within our group, John. Since it involves psychology and philosophy as well as some other debatable subjects, discussion could be largely a matter of one's own, personal opinion, with not a great deal of factual evidence. But, after all, that can sometimes heat up a discussion, can't it? Perhaps you might want to prepare one or two actual or hypothetical situations where the morality of this action, rather than that other one, is, or is not the best one to be followed, and why, eh?
Don
Don, thank you for the comment about being young, although since I am 70, I am concerned that you vision at age 94 is a bit clouded with age. 70 is not young my friend. You are simply older. (Dare I say "ancient") The fact I am even alive to confront you is a miracle. I will not comment on your belief that I am "wrong" except to say that your email about nations (July 11) proves my point.
You state, "For 2,500 years, political philosophers from Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton Nietzsche and Marks have devoted their thinking to the major issues of ethics and morals of nations, as well as to the rights of man. Few, except Machiavelli, who was concerned with government as it is, not as it should be, bothered with such things as the mere folly of ethics, although this folly has been, and is today, a chronic and pervasive problem."
In a speech to his friends, Otto von Bismark once stated: "Altruism? Among nations there is no such thing as altruism!" And Charles De Gaulle stated flatly: "The Foreign Policy of France is what is good for France!" Certainly your comment about Germany's generals proves my point. Total immoral disregard for the rights of other nations.
Concern for gov't as it IS rather than what it should be has ended the regimes of 1790's France, The Soviet Union, England during The American Revolution, and China today, and maybe America today. None of these were able to sustain their regimes for long. And, I might add, anyone who does not challenge government when they think it acts immorally is guilty of something between stupidity and treason.
In ancient times things were not comparable as States were monarchies and, as such might or might not have had a benign ruler. Those exceptions, Rome, Ancient Greece, etc. all fell due to internal economic and social problems that weakened the state. Had they been more concerned with righteousness they may have gone on much longer but they were consumed by greed.
In modern times where governments are representative, largely, nations fall when they ignore the people such as in Soviet Russia where lip service was paid to the communist ideal of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need", a noble statement of Marx's but completely unworkable due to that same greed. People and nations take the easy way out which most benefits them alone. But that is not to be lauded.
Arguably, Canada, The Scandinavian countries and a few more are the best and most modern examples of nations that listen to its citizen's needs, and ,as such, has a beneficial sort of morality at its core, noble principles, if you will. The United States once fit in that category and maybe still does, but I doubt it. Our constitution that was designed to protect the rights of the minority in the face of both the majority and the state, was remarkably new and beneficial. That is what gave it such impetus in its early years. But it cannot sustain itself in the milieu of greed that has overcome it. I'm talking here of the greed of both the rich and the poor. The ones who want it all and the ones who want someone else's.
As nations become greedy and act imperially, they lose their way and fall.....all of them. There has never been a thousand year reign with the possible exception of ancient Greece and Egypt; and Egypt for different reasons. But neither of those were "imperial" after their early conquest regimes stabilized. In the early days yes, in the latter no. Rome fell because its imperialism outstripped its economic ability. Egypt was about commerce and the arts and Greece about scholarship and the arts. Both nation-states had long, long regime stability due to how they treated their citizenry and their neighbors ( with a couple minor ruler exceptions).
A nation which does not act with good moral purpose toward both its citizens and other nations will not last long. Self interest as per DeGaulle' comment is a recipe for disaster.
Particularly in the emerging world corporate government where corporations transcend national boundaries. The US's imperial actions in Iraq have earned us universal distrust, even scorn, from many trusted allies. How can that be beneficial to our nation?
How can we sustain the idea that we, who have less than 10% of the world's population, should consume 60% of its resources? Do you, as a humanist, not see the moral issue there?
Any nation which acts with disregard for morality, disregard for others, disregard for nations and disregard for its poor and sick and elderly, will shortly be replaced. It happens every time.
Unless we return (if that is the right word) to a national morality that is by the people, of the people and for the people and for others who are not our citizens, we will not survive long.
