Realpoltik and the Prisoner's Dilemma.

[phongn]

Some thoughts...

It seems that international relations is dominated by the amoral realpoltik, demanding the primacy of the state and discarding pretense of morality in favor of national gain. Many here would rather prefer that nations move to a moral-based system. But is it possible?

The prisoner's dilemma works here. To simplify things, consider two 'sides,' Nation A and everyone else. Nation A could be the United States, France, Iraq or South Korea, it matters not.

Now, if Nation A and everyone else decides to work on a more moral-based stance, both sides are likely to be better off. If both sides decline to do so, the status quo is maintained for good or ill. The problem here is that if, say, one nation on 'everyone else' decides to retain realpoltik while Nation A switches to a morality-based system, that nation is now at a disadvantage in international relations.

While if that one nation is something like Nepal, it hardly matters, but if that nation is, say, Russia or China, Nation A risks much more. It is unlikely that any governement will be willing to take such a risk, whether Nation A is Andorra or Australia.

Now given that the prisoner's dilemma seems to hold true and that nations will choose the 'middle ground' rather than risk disadvantage what can we do to move to a more moral-based system?

[Axis Kast]

Nothing. Foreign policy will never be predicated by anything but an amoral cost-benefit analysis. There' simply too much incentive to take advantage of those who moderate themselves voluntarily.

[Iceberg]

My answer to the prisoner's dilemma:

If you talk and your partner stays silent, you get 1 year.
If you both stay silent, you get two years.
If you stay silent and your partner talks, you get 5 years.
If you both talk, you get three years.

In the mean case if you talk, you get (4/2) = 2 years. In the mean case, if you stay silent, you get (7/2) = 3.5 years. In three out of four possible cases, you get a better deal if you talk than if you shut up. Not only that, but it's pretty easy in court to talk down a short prison sentence into a few months in the county jail and a couple hundred hours of community service.

My ass doesn't fancy the idea of spending five years in prison in any event.

I confess.

[RedImperator]

It's the same dilemma that comes up when you talk about applying Kant's ethics to real life. In theory, the world would be a better place if everyone adopted Kant's moral ideas in their everyday lives (essentially, whatever is the right thing to do in one situation is the right thing to do in all situations; i.e., never lie, never cheat, never act violently, etc.). In practice, the entire world could become vulnerable to a handful of immoral men who take advantage of a population that won't fight back. This was beautifully illustrated by, of all things, a Dilbert cartoon where Dogbert wishes everyone in the world would renounce violence, because then he could conquer the entire world with a butter knife.

[Wicked Pilot]

Now given that the prisoner's dilemma seems to hold true and that nations will choose the 'middle ground' rather than risk disadvantage what can we do to move to a more moral-based system?

I would say it is possible, but only on a limited scale. You don't have to treat all nations equally. The ones who are with you on the morals you can treat morally. The ones who choose to be realpoltik should have the favor returned. You will never make the world a perfect place, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

[Darth Wong]

Choosing between a system of ethics based on pure morality and a system of ethics based on pure amorality is a bit of a false dilemma; most people are willing to do something unethical in order to save their own lives, for example, and you can't blame them. However, when someone decides that morality has no place whatsoever in foreign policy (the position of one Axis Kast, for example), he is basically saying that even in situations where your survival is not at stake, it is perfectly acceptable to do unethical things as long as the cost/benefit ratio works out.

[Publius]

Alexander Hamilton attempted to create a Humean/Vattelian political system wherein the personal interests of the individual could be directed to the benefit of the nation. For example, he deliberately organised the Bank of the United States in such a manner that it was operated for private gain, so that the directors of the Bank would be more motivated to manage its affairs carefully and prudently.

One of the chief differences between the Jeffersonian/Madisonian and Hamiltonian schools of thought is that the former attempts to minimise the influence of human corruption and self-interest, while the latter attempts to sublimate it. Hamiltonianism is perhaps more realistic, and is certainly more pragmatic.

Although nation-states have decidedly different personalities than individual people, the same principle might theoretically be made to apply. If it can be demonstrated that a moral action is in a nation-state's best interests, then the realpolitisch thing to do is to undertake that moral action. In matters not directly related to national integrity, legitimate national security, and national survival, a Hamiltonian foreign policy would probably prove to be palatable both to idealism and to Realpolitik.

Publius

[Axis Kast]

Unfortunately, I don't see how such ideas could be vindicated. It already seems to be the trend that moral behavior is unnecessarily costly.

[Edi]

That would depend on what and how you define as cost, and what level of cost you find unacceptable, Kast. For someone like you, with no ethics and no morality at all, those thresholds are so low and high respectively that it's not funny in the least.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

The question was whether or not universal moral government was possible. Outside a cost-benefit realm, it’s not. And that’s assuming all parties agree that moral behavior is in their best interests anyway – which obviously they don’t. Many cultures are dismissive of their own prisoners of war and thus never make the kind of determinations about which Phongn speaks. Moral behavior – for the sake of moral behavior, assuming you’ve no other objectives in mind for which that behavior is a ruse or precursor – is inherently more costly than amoral behavior nine times out of ten. The humane treatment of prisoners simply for the human treatment of prisoners is clearly unattractive to a nation that (1) has no fear of its own prisoners being abused and (2) makes no concession to the psychology of its own wardens.