It would help if in quoting several peopls, you'd idntify the quotes by person.
I'll just address those points you made with respect to my comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
...What I described is essentially the realist position on morality and principles in politics.
No, what you described is the textbook version of that position. Reality has a very different take.
Quote:
Your second sentence in the quoted statement reinforces that view. Destroying one's own credibility is not in one's own interest. Therefore, one should at least maintain the appearance of credibility. "Sensible" principles would be a way to construct an appearance of credibility.
Again you promote academic theory; we have numerous examples of bright young things doing that over the years, Bundy, Wolfowitz... As the Actress said to the Bishop "You not only shouldn't do anything that's wrong, you should not even give the appearance of doing anything that's wrong..." Unfortunately, the very bright are not inclined to listen to an actress.
Quote:
I agree. Politics and soldiering are completely different. One requires deception, manipulation, and exploitation. The other requires absolute trust, courage, and exertion. It's why I'm involved in one and not the other. ;)
Interesting. May I ask which you are involved in?
Quote:
Which of course leads to the question of the extent of influence enjoyed by those in the opium trade.
Directly contingent upon family ties (which your scheme cannot replicate) and secondarily the amount of money flowing, I'm quite sure.
Quote:
That's one cause, certainly. Another, perhaps, is that we really have no national concensus of what consistute our values.
I disagree, aberrant schemes have caused most of our foreign policy gaffes and deviations from principle. They have almost always been dreamed up by bright young things who see no problem in just a little deviation from principle for impressive gains. Such idiotic thinking put us in Viet Nam and put us in Iraq in a less than satisfactory mode. The slight deviations from principle have invariably caused more problems than they solved and as one who spent over 45 years cleaning up after those kinds of dipwad screwups, I'm not at all in favor of them. I've got a son who's now doing cleanup work -- he's not in favor of them either.
You're also incorrect in your assertion there is no national consensus on what constitutes our values. There is one -- the problem is that the values (and I use the term loosely) of academe and our national media do not sign on to that consensus -- which is essentially, do what's right. In any nation of over 300 million, there will always be many views on any topic -- but a consensus of a slight majority is pretty well convinced of what is right and what is wrong; the quibbling voices arguing other positions do not change that, nor does the matter that the educational and media establishments also differ alter the fact.
You earlier asked this:
Quote:
More or less. My question to you is: what is the alternative to "ends-justify-means"? Isn't that how we operate? We come up with some goal, then put together plan a that will attain it. Doesn't the "end" compel us to use some particular "means" that otherwise would not be done?.
No, it is not how we operate -- again regardless of the jaundiced view of many in the halls of ivy and the media. It is, regrettably, how we have on occasion operated, thus the partial justification for their view -- and we are still paying the price for most of those aberrations everyday. No, the end does not compel us to do what you or others suggest; we have sometimes done so not because of compulsion but simply because it seemed easier at the time. It was not. It never is.
I too find myself somewhat perplexed at
some of the things you suggest PRIDE,
But since others are doing such an excellent job of addressing that I'll limit myself to something simple that I can handle without possibly breaking my brain:wry:
Principles when looked at as prisms may very easily be confused as having no more solidity then traditions. In so far as ones ability to pick and/or choose in order to facilitate actions in order to attain given goals.
Fortunately for the human race mankind does have the inherent knowledge that right and wrong do exist and as such conscience can and should play a prominent role in decisions.
A principled man will make mistakes both ignorantly or by choice, he will however if he knows what those principles are have to ability to judge himself in such a manner as to hopefully not continue along foolhardy paths.
For he that chooses to manipulate those principles in such a way as to legitimize his own wants without regard to others life will be very painful in both the short and the long term.
This goes doubly for a govt. These exist for a purpose and as such interact for a purpose. When these interactions take place without attention and consideration for those whom govt represents then you can take what the unprincipled man gets and multiply it by about a million.
There will always be "easier" ways and the right way, as Ken pointed out the former more oft than not results in great sorrow and burden for many and rarely achieves that which it sought.
On the Iran thing-
A race car driver wants to win the race so he does everything he can to make his car the fastest, then for good measure he tampers with the opponents car.
HE wins:D
The rest of the story-
half way through the race the opponents car breaks down, and in doing so runs into the car next to him. This causes the opponent to spin into the wall where he is then run into by twenty other cars. He survives but three others in the pile up don't, one of which was the younger brother of the driver who won.
And the first car that was hit by the opponents vehicle was run off the racetrack over the barrier into the pit crew areas where 4 are injured and the father of our winner was crushed .
Long story short, you may get what you want but more often than not you probably won't like what you got. :(