Internationally-Are we our brothers' keeper?

[coquina]

Do the citizens of the free world have a duty to aid the people under the thumb of dictators and tyrants gain their freedom?

 

If so, does this apply equally to all countries?

 

How does a country manage this without throwing its weight around?

[Coral Rhedd]

We have as much responsibility for strangers in Iraq as we have for other strangers in our own countries. But how would killing still more strangers in a war, be demonstrating responsibility?

[Cadmus]

Do the citizens of the free world have a duty to aid the people under the thumb of dictators and tyrants gain their freedom?

No.

[coquina]

We have as much responsibility for strangers in Iraq as we have for other strangers in our own countries. But how would killing still more strangers in a war, be demonstrating responsibility?

 

Coral - I started this thread because the one titled, "Setting Limits On Weapons For China" got off on a tangent. One of the paragraphs in the article that was posted gave one of the reasons the weapons embargo should continue is because of the Chinese government's position on the "human rights" of its citizens.

 

My position is that if it is morally right for us to step in and try to force the Chinese to improve the lot of their people, then it is equally right for us to try to stop the genocide in Africa. (not to mention other areas of the world).

 

Mind you, I am not saying that we should - I'm saying that if we believe all men are created equal, then we have the same responsibility to one group of people as we do to another.

 

I am eliminating all other reasons for embargo or war - not to stop military expansion, not to find weapons of mass destruction, simply to insure all people have the same equality.

 

If the majority determines this is the action that should be taken - how is it done without "throwing our weight around". In a perfect world, through the UN, I suppose.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral - I started this thread because the one titled' date=' "Setting Limits On Weapons For China" got off on a tangent. One of the paragraphs in the article that was posted gave one of the reasons the weapons embargo should continue is because of the Chinese government's position on the "human rights" of its citizens.

 

My position is that if it is morally right for us to step in and try to force the Chinese to improve the lot of their people, then it is equally right for us to try to stop the genocide in Africa. (not to mention other areas of the world).

[/quote']

 

Ah, I had not read that thread. I will do so for background.

 

Mind you, I am not saying that we should - I'm saying that if we believe all men are created equal, then we have the same responsibility to one group of people as we do to another.

 

Well I will concede that I agree with you in principle.

 

I am eliminating all other reasons for embargo or war - not to stop military expansion, not to find weapons of mass destruction, simply to insure all people have the same equality.

 

That should be a fairly exhausting task. We haven't achieved that in the U.S. yet IMHO. But certainly genocide is one of the most reprehensible human rights abuses.

[Aardvark]

Do the citizens of the free world have a duty to aid the people under the thumb of dictators and tyrants gain their freedom?

 

Liberty is indivisable. To turn a blind eye to repression is to be morally complict in that repression.

 

If so, does this apply equally to all countries?

 

People are people wherever they live. The idea that some people are more worthy of rights than others is indefensible.

 

For example the complete wilful ignorance of most of the world to the suffering of the Karen people, facing ethnic cleansing nearly tauntamont to genocide in Burma. Seemingly because there are no 4 star hotels for reporters to stay in, therefore no news coverage, therefore no one cares. Or Western Sahara, or Southern Sudan, or....... the list goes on.

 

How does a country manage this without throwing its weight around?

 

Moral pressure, setting a good example, postive assistance with aid, education, fairer trading policies. Or throwing their weight around. Sometimes force is the only way to get things done. It can be crude and bloody, but this is the real world, lets not be naive, good intentions don't mean anything without action.

[Coral Rhedd]

Do the citizens of the free world have a duty to aid the people under the thumb of dictators and tyrants gain their freedom?

 

Yes. However' date=' what form that aid takes must be well considered. If all people are really equal in principle, then the unenlightened are as important as the enlightened. Those who live under dictatorships without chaffing have blood as precious as those who do not. Most "aid" should stop well short of war.

 

If so, does this apply equally to all countries?

 

I would say yes, stipulating that "aid" should not shed blood except in the most desperate cases.

 

How does a country manage this without throwing its weight around?

 

Frankly, it rather helps the reputation if they haven't been crying wolf. For example, saying a dictator has weapons of mass destruction when the proof has not been gathered by the agency responsible for establishing this proof. Then, when such weapons were not found, saying the aggressive action is acceptable because of what a dictator might do in the future. I do not believe in preemptive war.

[Cadmus]

Liberty is indivisable. To turn a blind eye to repression is to be morally complict in that repression.

I get the impression that you are quite the idealist. Your idealism is so impractical that no government in the entire world has ever taken your position and I suspect never will, as it is quite impractical and unachievable even if desireable.

 

Moral pressure, setting a good example, postive assistance with aid, education, fairer trading policies. Or throwing their weight around. Sometimes force is the only way to get things done. It can be crude and bloody, but this is the real world, lets not be naive, good intentions don't mean anything without action.

One man's good intentions are another man's evil. Who is to decide which is which? You?

[TimeTraveler]

Do the citizens of the free world have a duty to aid the people under the thumb of dictators and tyrants gain their freedom?

 

Yes. It may not be written down anywhere but as a human being I think it is a moral duty to mankind.

 

If so, does this apply equally to all countries?

 

Yes. We all came from Africa, we all originated from the same bloodlines, and we are all humans. Weather you believe compassion is a gift from god or a natural development it doesn't matter, we all have compassion, we must have it for a reason.

 

How does a country manage this without throwing its weight around?

 

Defeating the roots of the problems. First you must look at the what the problems are, then you must look for what caused those problems, then you need to make sure those causes go away.

 

For example genocide, everyone knows what the problem is, but how did it come to be. What causes people to commit genocide and what causes people to do nothing to stop it? Usually fundamantalism of some form starts the process, people follow because they either have bought into the fundamentalism or they want to be on the winning side (You are either with us or against us, good vs. evil mentality).

 

What is the differance between genocide and war? Thats a question I don't think everyone will ever agree to an answer on.

 

If the freeworld is going to fight genocide it first needs to stop commiting it.

[Aardvark]

I get the impression that you are quite the idealist. Your idealism is so impractical that no government in the entire world has ever taken your position and I suspect never will, as it is quite impractical and unachievable even if desireable.

 

Actually many governments have taken exactly my position and considered that they had an obligation to understand the moral impact of their actions.

 

For example, Gladstones government, seeing its duty as spreading enlightenment and opposing such despotism as the Bulgarian massacres by the Ottomans.

 

Or the Reagan administration, seeing its duty as opposing communism and spreading democracy and liberty to Eastern Europe.

 

Or Woodrow Wilson with his 21 points.

 

All these governments had their flaws and made mistakes, but nevertheless they were motivated by considerations of liberty and human progress. These ideals always have to be advanced in practical manners, compromises must be made, injustices overlooked, but, the fact remains that the intention and action which follows from that existed and created results.

 

You think it impractical or unachieveable? Tell that to someone in Eastern Europe casting a vote in a free election.

 

 

 

One man's good intentions are another man's evil. Who is to decide which is which? You?

 

Yes.

 

We are all independent moral entities. We all have to make that decision.

 

Otherwise you are simply hiding in a fog of moral relativism. The cowardly and decadent cop out which people use as an excuse to avoid facing reality.

[Sayonara]

I get the impression that you are quite the idealist. Your idealism is so impractical that no government in the entire world has ever taken your position and I suspect never will, as it is quite impractical and unachievable even if desireable.

I don't see aything wrong with being an idealist, even one with "impractical" ideals.

 

As long as there are people keeping ideas alive, situations eventually change.

[Cadmus]

Actually many governments have taken exactly my position and considered that they had an obligation to understand the moral impact of their actions.

All of the examples that you cited are not valid, in my opinion. Each of these actions was a limited action done for immediate polictical expediency, and not part of any plan to make the world a better place morally.

 

All these governments had their flaws and made mistakes, but nevertheless they were motivated by considerations of liberty and human progress.

I disagree with your interpretation, but your idealism is refreshing.

 

You think it impractical or unachieveable? Tell that to someone in Eastern Europe casting a vote in a free election.

When governments act for political expediency, there certainly may be benefits to other countries. This example hardly shows a motivation to work for liberation of the entire world.

 

The cowardly and decadent cop out which people use as an excuse to avoid facing reality.

I do not mind your idealism at all. However, your ideas are completely unrealistic in my opinion, and no government in the entire world shares them. I think that your usage of condescending words toward those who do not share your idealistic thoughts is quite unbecoming. That you would call those who don't fall in line with your romantic idealism cowards and cop outs tells more about you than about them. While you wish to spread "liberty" to every corner of the world, you would castigate everyone who exercises it in a manner that you personally don't like. I think that you are evidence against your own ideal.

[Cadmus]

Yes. It may not be written down anywhere but as a human being I think it is a moral duty to mankind.

Noted

 

We all came from Africa, we all originated from the same bloodlines, and we are all humans. Weather you believe compassion is a gift from god or a natural development it doesn't matter, we all have compassion, we must have it for a reason.

What do you think is the reason behind the compassion that has caused constant warfare throughout history?

[Cadmus]

I don't see aything wrong with being an idealist, even one with "impractical" ideals.

My purpose was not to suggest that there is anything wrong with being an idealist. I certainly have nothing against it.

[Sayonara]

All of the examples that you cited are not valid, in my opinion. Each of these actions was a limited action done for immediate polictical expediency, and not part of any plan to make the world a better place morally.

Is this to suggest that an action in that direction only "counts" if it has unbound scope?

 

I do not mind your idealism at all. However, your ideas are completely unrealistic in my opinion, and no government in the entire world shares them. I think that your usage of condescending words toward those who do not share your idealistic thoughts is quite unbecoming. That you would call those who don't fall in line with your romantic idealism cowards and cop outs tells more about you than about them.

I do not agree that the lack of governments currently committed to putting such ideals into action makes them impractical per se. There are other factors to consider. It makes them "currently undesirable".

As a sentient species we are still quite morally and socially immature (which, ironically, can be measured using the disparity between ideals and practice). However we might not always exist this way.

[Cadmus]

Is this to suggest that an action in that direction only "counts" if it has unbound scope?

Not at all. I believe that statements such as the following say that:

Liberty is indivisable. To turn a blind eye to repression is to be morally complict in that repression.

I think that governments tend to act for reasons of political expediency. That is why the U.S. is in Iraq and not in Sudan. After the first gulf war, the press was talking about how we had liberated the Kuwaitis. How many Americans know that there is a country called Kuwait, or cares at all about the Kuwaitis. In my opinion, it is obvious that this pretty and moralistic excuse was given for executing what was perceived to be in the best interests of the U.S. Our actions in Iraq are being done for what are perceived to be in the best interests of the U.S. We are not doing this for the Iraqis. The benefit to the Iraqis is a valuable secondary benefit, but it is not primary. All this idealism about liberating the world is nice idealism, but it is idealism nevertheless. Governments give charity, but they give it where they give the bulk of it where they get the most brownie points.

 

Liberty is indivisable. To turn a blind eye to repression is to be morally complict in that repression.

Considering all of the repression in the world that is and has been continued for our entire lives, it seems that this statement accuses every modern government and most people alive today as being "morally complicit". Being idealistic is one thing, and I have nothing against it, but making ridiculous accsations against everyone in the entire world in this way goes far beyond what I can condone.

[Aardvark]

All of the examples that you cited are not valid, in my opinion. Each of these actions was a limited action done for immediate polictical expediency, and not part of any plan to make the world a better place morally.

 

If you can find any evidence that Gladstones condemnation of the Bulgarian massacres was for immediate political expediency i would be most interested. Otherwise your opinion is not valid.

 

Please try to back your opinions up with evidence and facts otherwise people will see your opinions as being valueless.

 

When governments act for political expediency, there certainly may be benefits to other countries. This example hardly shows a motivation to work for liberation of the entire world.

 

The example of people in Eastern Europe having votes in free elections is not one of governments working for political expendiency. Please at least try and back your assertions with some logic or reasoning. The people of Eastern Europe have most certainly been liberated from oppressive dictatorship.

 

I do not mind your idealism at all. However, your ideas are completely unrealistic in my opinion, and no government in the entire world shares them.

 

Those unrealistic ideas of mine shared by Gladstone, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and now, to a certain extent G W Bush.

 

My ideas may seem unrealistic to you (on the basis of no apparent reasoning, logic or evidence from your part) but they have been shared and are shared by governments around the world.

 

I think that your usage of condescending words toward those who do not share your idealistic thoughts is quite unbecoming. That you would call those who don't fall in line with your romantic idealism cowards and cop outs tells more about you than about them.

 

I call anyone a coward who shys away from making any moral judgements. That is cultural relativism, which is an excuse for never having to make a judgement. That is cowardice and a cop out.

 

While you wish to spread "liberty" to every corner of the world, you would castigate everyone who exercises it in a manner that you personally don't like. I think that you are evidence against your own ideal.

 

I haven't castigated anyone for exercising their liberty in any maner. I castigate people who deny others their liberty. The fact that you feel the need to put the word liberty in inverted commas tells us a lot about yourself.

[Sayonara]

Considering all of the repression in the world that is and has been continued for our entire lives, it seems that this statement accuses every modern government and most people alive today as being "morally complicit". Being idealistic is one thing, and I have nothing against it, but making ridiculous accsations against everyone in the entire world in this way goes far beyond what I can condone.

Why is that ridiculous?

 

It's not a nice thing to say, but then we are presented with the fact that - as you say - these things have been going on for our entire lives.

[marlinsfan]

hell no...the US is suppose to me the 'mediator' screw that...the US DOESN'T HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO HELP ANYONE! Look at iraq, the the US wasn't so adiment of destroying Iran...Saddamn Hussein wouldn't have been in power...so the point im making is that many of the reasons of why there is opression in the int'l community is BECAUSE of mitiagation installed in the first place...

[coquina]

How can it be expected that governments act with civility, when individuals don't?

[Skye]

Individuals are expected to as well, but people don't always live up to expectations.

 

To the original question, I would say no. One nation is not responsible for the actions of another.

[Sayonara]

One nation is not responsible for the actions of another.

I'm not sure that was the question. The o/p appears to ask if other nations should be prepared to adopt that responsibility, not whether they are considered to shoulder it automatically.

[Coral Rhedd]

How can it be expected that governments act with civility, when individuals don't?

 

Ideally, our government should represent "the better angels of our nature." If a government cannot create something rather larger than the sum of its parts, isn't it a failure?

[john5746]

Do the citizens of the free world have a duty to aid the people under the thumb of dictators and tyrants gain their freedom?

 

Yes, I think coutries that are wealthy and free have a duty to help less fortunate citizens of other countries. I also think it isn't irresponsible to take into account the interests of said nation and the risks involved to consider if and what actions to take.

 

If so' date=' does this apply equally to all countries?[/quote']

 

No

 

1) All nations and situations are not alike

2) National interests are important, after all its citizens are paying and possibly dying for the cause.

 

So, America being concerned with Iraq because of oil or terrorism or with Cuba because of close proximity and not some African country is understandable.

 

How does a country manage this without throwing its weight around?

 

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. I think working within the UN framework is a good start, although if national security is really an issue, that must take precedence.