Thank you all for your birthday wishes. They warmed my heart.
As I look back over my long life, I find that I have spent
most of my time thinking about eight or ten big questions, to which I return
again and again. The first big question I tackled was my attempt to find a straightforward,
coherent argument in the Critique of Pure Reason that began with a premise that
David Hume could not consistently deny and led by simple logical steps to a
proof of the causal maxim. I found that argument, at least in a form that
satisfied me, a little less than sixty-three years ago and set it forth three
years later in my first book, Kant’s Theory of Mental Activity.
One of the earliest questions to which I have not found a
satisfactory answer to this day can be stated simply in this fashion: Given the
world as it is, not as we wish it would be, what ought the foreign policy of
the United States to be? It is easy enough to criticize what the United States
does and to call out the hypocrisy of its public pronouncements. I did that
publicly for the first time almost 62 years ago when I chaired a Cuba Protest
Rally at Harvard (an event that got somewhat less local attention than I had hoped
because it coincided with a student protest of Harvard’s decision to print its
diplomas in English rather than in Latin,) and I have been doing it ever since.
That takes very little knowledge or courage or thought. But then when I ask
myself, What ought the foreign policy of the United States to be? I find myself
torn and uncertain.
I am not asking what minor tweaks or adjustments in America’s
foreign policy I would like to see a Democratic administration make. Nor am I interested
once more in assigning blame – Lord knows there is plenty to go around. No, I
am asking a deeper and more difficult question: given all the facts on the
ground as they are, and leaving entirely to one side the possibility of
actually putting such a policy into effect, what ideally should the foreign
policy of the United States be right now?
Speaking broadly, I can see three possibilities. The first
is what I think of as the Luxembourg or Swiss policy: the United States could
withdraw all its troops back within its borders, dramatically reduce the size
of its military budget, withdraw from all “entangling alliances,” and as it
were mind its own business. If countries want to invade one another, engage in
extensive slaughter, deny the rights of women or gays, or Christians, or Jews,
or Muslims, or Hindus, overthrow democratic regimes and replace them with
autocratic regimes and do all manner of other evil things, that is their own
business so long as they do not threaten the territory of the United States and
its citizens.
The second possibility is what I think of as the modern
Monroe doctrine: United States carves out a portion of the world – let us say,
North, Central, and South America, and declares that so long as the rest of the
world keeps its hands of this territory, it can do as it wishes.
The third possibility would be some form of progressive
militaristic interventionism: using the enormous military power of the United
States for what I think of as good rather than what I think of as evil.
As I say, it is easy to expose the hypocrisy and dishonesty
of the US government in all of its Democratic and Republican iterations. But
doing that does not answer the question, What ought our foreign policy and
military policy to be?
I simply do not know what I think.
38 comments:
This is a great question, which deserves the attention of all who comment on this blog, particularly those who have been consistently critical of U.S. foreign policy. (Some may think that because I am frequently the first to comment on Prof. Wolff’s posts that all I do all day is hover over his blog, ready to pounce in order to be first to put in my two cents. Not true. I do spend my time doing other things, like reading the news on CNN; watching the news; reading parts of books (I have started reading some 8 books this past year – both fiction and nonfiction – and have not finished any of them); reading law cases and writing briefs (which I am doing today for a brief that has to be filed by tomorrow in the Michigan Court of Appeals); and playing chess. But I periodically interrupt these enterprises by checking in on the blog to see the most recent posting and the comments. So here I am.
I would reject option 1 out-of-hand. It would be extremely selfish for the currently most economically successful country, with one of the most powerful militaries in the world, to sit back and watch as autocracies invade other nations, murdering and raping as they ruthlessly suppress human rights.
I think that option 2 is not any better than option 1. Where would we be today if FDR had selected either option 1 or 2, as Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire imposed their will on Europe and Asia? Could Russia have defeated Hitler on its own, once the Nazis retreated from Stalingrad? And would Hitler have been satisfied with occupying Western Europe without considering invading the U.S.?
As I watch the devastation which Russia is inflicting on Ukraine, I am convinced that option 3, wisely implemented, avoiding the temptation to impose our will on nations which have not threatened our security, is the most advisable, most pragmatic, and moral, alternative. And I believe that Biden’s foreign policy is currently implementing option 3 in a reasonably competent manner, aiding Ukraine to resist Russia’s aggression, without taking risks which might escalate into a nuclear Armageddon.
Post-post-script:
The rejection of options 1 and 2, in favor of option 3, reduces to Rabbi Hillel’s exhortation: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?”
I would quickly dismiss the first, and probably the second. I think the answer has to be some form of the third (unless the second can be modified to broaden its scope).
Despite our breadth and size, we are not a self-sufficient nation—unless we want a radically lower standard of living. That means we must trade with other countries. In the past, trade was conducted on a bilateral basis, which led to many rivalries, disputes and wars. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was established after WWII as an attempt to move toward a non-discriminatory system. The World Trade Organization now has that responsibility. Discrimination still exists, but it is much less.
The tougher question for is the military question. Eisenhower’s feared military-industrial complex is a reality. But I would not want to live in a world in which we were militarily weak compared to other countries—China and Russia. I would not trust them not to move in on us if they could. How to maintain that strength without the accompanying power of the military-industrial lobby is beyond me.
The biggest threat is nuclear, both proliferation and the possible use of the ones we have now. Trump, I believe, has through his ignorance, greatly increased the chances of proliferation. Countries like Korea and Japan in Asia, as well as Europe were told, in effect, that they don’t need nuclear weapons, that we have their backs. From FDR to Barack Obama, they had good reason to accept that. Now they don’t. The fact that Trump probably is gone for good isn’t enough. We‘ve demonstrated that a Trump can be elected President of the United States, and those countries can never be sure, any more than we can, that it won’t happen again.
By default, I come down to some form of what we’re doing now, but not so well. Bush was a disaster with his war in Iraq as well as his failure in Afghanistan: instead of going after bin Laden and getting out, he actually reduced troops in Afghanistan to beef up the forces in Iraq.
How we maintain the strength needed for defense, for ourselves and our allies (apart from the humanitarian reasons for aiding our European allies, I wouldn’t want to live in a world in which the Atlantic was Russia’s western border)—how we do this and at the same time reduce the influence of the military-industrial lobby, as I’ve already said, is beyond me.
As I think David’s response begins to bring out, there are a number of assumptions in the way the issue is posed, assumptions that may actually invalidate the choices. E.g., the observation that there are economic consequenes to foreign policy, or to state it another way, foreign policy is not and cannot be only about how power — and the stating of the choices seems to make it clear that RPW had only military power in mind — ought to be projected, foreign policy has other components, such as the economic, such as the cultural. So I suppose one answer to the basic question would be to try to get Americans, both politicians and many among the general public, to stop thinking so militaristically when it comes to thinking about foreign policy.
Another assumption that I don’t think has been canvassed yet is that decisions on foreign policy can be made unilaterally. Foreign policy is surely always framed in relation to others. To ask what grand approach to foreign affairs the US should adopt, especially when then going on to propose three quite tendentious options, is, one might suggest, a bit solipsistic. Yet as has been pointed out by e.g. Michael Billig in his book “Banal Nationalism” (1995, I think), there is a tendency for Americans, blithely unaware of their own everyday nationalism, to think of their country as, unlike lesser countries, autonomous, as an unmoved mover, so to speak. So I suppose another response to the basic question is to try to get Americans to think less nationalistically when it comes to engaging with the rest of the world.
Basically much of what Pitt says.
Before the U.S. can develop a non-imperialist foreign policy, there has to be a consciousness within the country, first of all, of the dangers of imperialism, second of all, of how humanitarian interventions are often designed to serve U.S. imperial aims, third, of how the U.S. is not special, that it is a super-power that has frequently behaved in a very ugly manner in international affairs although always claiming to act in the name of democracy and human rights, etc.
When and if that change of consciousness comes about, then it will be neither 1 nor 2 nor 3, but an entirely new situation, which is possible to imagine, but will not occur without some hard internal reflection about who "we" are that I've seen little of in the U.S.
I suppose that if individuals are capable of reflecting on their lives and of changing how they treat others (for example, many of us males now treat women differently than we did 50 years ago), then societies may be capable of reflecting collectively on the way they treat other societies.
Marc, it's quite "okay" (in the sense of "not uncommon" - not to say healthy!) to say that your lifestyle requires a lot of sitting in front of the computer, taking frequent breaks to blow off steam by cycling through your favorite bookmarks. You're, um, hardly alone... ;)
And also some more thoughts re. your question about the foundations of ethics. Let's try to keep this briefer than last time:
The way you phrase your question, "On what basis does one decide...?" makes it seem loaded in a way: Do our moral lives really consist in grasping intrinsically compelling "reasons for acting," and conforming ourselves thereto? What if they don't?
I think one of the key ideas of the naturalistic, anti-realistic approach to ethical theory is that traditional philosophers have radically misunderstood what it is to decide - or rather, that there is nothing there to be "understood" (in the sense of logically deriving conclusions from premises). My sense of this view is: We ultimately "just act" - or, our actions just unfold - and it's up to the psychologists to describe what goes on in our heads (and behind the scenes)* as these things takes place: probably something involving a complex, evolving network of desires, aversions, loves, hates, loyalties, hopes, impulses, beliefs, prejudices, fears...
It may appear to us that "what's going on" is akin to a computer following commands in accordance with a programmed set of instructions - albeit endowed with the faculty of free choice. But this appearance might be radically misleading. It tempts us to think we might attain to a "God's-eye-view" from which to evaluate the rightness and wrongness of our actions, independently of whatever our psychological makeup happens to be (i.e., independently of who and what we are). The philosophical pursuit of this God's-eye-view - i.e., the disputes over the centuries between utilitarians, deontologists, and anyone else who proposes an objective, unconditional criterion for right conduct - has resembled so much fruitless mystification. (And the "free will" stuff is kind of buggy, too.)
Wittgenstein once asked (not sure where), "Do squirrels store nuts for the winter because they believe they have solved the problem of induction?"
Food for thought, anyway. I'm not "taking sides" myself, just supposing you might be intrigued or helped by an alternative perspective in navigating this question. Chances are you'll find it repulsive...I can sort of see why, but I haven't quite ruled it out of consideration.
*To quote the SEP: "In recent years there has been a growing body of research reporting that judgments evoked by moral thought experiments are affected by environmental factors that look to be completely irrelevant to the moral issue at hand. The presence of dirty pizza boxes and a whiff of fart spray, the use of soap or an antiseptic handwipe, or even the proximity of a hand sanitizer dispenser have all been reported to influence moral intuitions. Tobia et al. found that the moral intuitions of both students and professional philosophers are affected by spraying the questionnaire with a disinfectant spray. Valdesolo and DeSteno reported that viewing a humorous video clip can have a substantial impact on participant’s moral intuitions. And Strohminger et al. have shown that hearing different kinds of audio clips (stand-up comedy or inspirational stories from a volume called Chicken Soup for the Soul) has divergent effects on moral intuitions."
Michael,
I would contrast your comment with the preceding comment by s. wallerstein. You are proposing that the decisions we make are, in large part, influenced by psychological states which we are unaware of. If this is the case – and I am not claiming that it is not the case – then there is little basis to maintain that the decisions one makes for oneself are “right” or “wrong” decisions with which others should agree and should endorse for themselves, since they have their own psychological stimuli which will influence their decisions. But s. wallerstein is asserting that in response to Prof. Wolff’s question regarding U.S. foreign policy that none of the proposed answers is “correct,” and that Americans must first modify their nationalistic views before any “right” decision can be made regarding what U.S. foreign policy should be. There is a prescriptive, moralistic dimension to s. wallerstein’s answer that, it seems to me, is incompatible to your take on what goes into decision-making.
The claim that Michael makes above that our decisions are largely affected by psychological states in no way contradicts what I say above.
First of all, I didn't say that there is a "right" course of action. That's your word, Marc, which you constantly attribute to me without any justification. I spoke of a non-imperialistic course of action. Whether that is "right" or "wrong" depends on your political position, on which side you are on.
I said that that would be the result of reflection, any reflection on our actions must take into account the fact that our decisions are largely affected by psychological states.
We have to work on ourselves, on our unconscious prejudices and biases, in order to make reflective decisions. That's why the form I treat women now is not the result of having decided what is the "right" way to treat women, but of over 50 years of scrutinizing the way I treat women in dialogue with women, of being aware of all the unconscious bullshit which I had and still have in my head about how women "are" and trying to sort that out. I'm still at it.
Michael,
It is reported that the former Pope Benedict is on his deathbed. One Catholic commentator stated that Pope Benedict was the greatest theologian in the Catholic tradition of the 20th and, to date, 21st centuries. Now, I am quite sure that one of the beliefs that Pope Benedict firmly and unequivocally believes is that human life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion at any stage of a woman’s pregnancy equates to murder and is morally wrong. Most of the individuals who comment on this blog, including myself, reject this belief – with the exception, perhaps, of Michael Llenos - and maintain that human life does not begin at conception, but at some later time during the pregnancy, although there is probably no consensus among us on what that point in time is. My question, which I have raised on numerous occasions on this blog, is on what do we base our firm convictions that this act or that act is “right” or “wrong” such that we would expect others to agree with us? Ultimately, whatever position one takes on the issue of abortion, it is predicated on the belief that, regardless when the act is done, it is “wrong” or “immoral” to take the life of another human being, assuming that human being is “innocent,” i.e, has done nothing to deserve not being allowed to live. On what do we abase this belief in “right” and “wrong”? Is it no more, Michael, than the scent in the room we are in, or the music we happen to be hearing, that is the basis for our conviction? And, if this is the case, on what basis can we legitimately claim that Pope Benedict’s belief that life begins at conception, and therefore justifies prohibiting abortion, is “wrong”? Is it just a matter of deciding on whose side one is on, and, if so, on what basis do we have a right to claim that those who choose to be on a different side are wrong? The only person who has been willing to engage with me on this issue in any serious way has been David Zimmerman, and we reached an impasse in our discussion. If we cannot resolve this issue, what’s the point of debating what the best foreign policy should be for the U.S., since this question turns on other basic convictions regarding the right to kill others in self-defense; the right to kill others when it is not even in self-defense; the right to take the land away from others who are living on the land; the right to compel others to perform labor for strangers, with or without compensation; the right of people of the same gender to fall in love and get married, the same way that people of different genders claim they have a right to do; and on and on. Where do these convictions come from, and why do we all insist that our opinions regarding our own convictions are right, while those who disagree with us are wrong?
Why do I harp on this? Because, as many have pointed out on numerous occasions, this is a philosophy blog, after all, and not just a place for Marc Susselman to spout off about the most recent movie he has seen, or book he has read.
s. wallerstein,
You keep saying that in expressing your views you are not making a claim as to what is "right" or "Wrong." If that is the case, then why the hell would it matter if most Americans, or all Americans, are imperialists? Why not be imperialists???
Marc,
Good point.
From the standpoint of many people in the U.S. (we're Americans too in Chile) imperialism may be very beneficial. United Fruit brings you cheaper bananas, to take a classic example.
I don't take the standpoint of people in the U.S. I take the standpoint of people in Latin America who have been the victims since the Monroe Doctrine of U.S. imperialism.
On the other hand, there are some folks in the U.S. who are ashamed of be seen as imperialist pigs by much of the rest of the world.
s. wallerstein,
You keep missing my point. Why should Americans give a damn that inhabitants in Latin America feel they have been exploited by American imperialists? So what? Why shouldn’t might make right? If the shoe were on the other foot, why shouldn’t those living in Latin America exploit and take advantage of Americans, i.e., those living north of the Mexican border? What is “wrong” with being an imperialist pig? You keep talking in circles without even realizing that is what you are doing.
I thought s. wallerstein's phrase "clash of personalities" made for a nice addition to the anti-realist/naturalist vocabulary. (Was several threads ago; I just now remembered the phrase, but have forgotten the context.)
But I see and sympathize with Marc's point as well. Even if (as it may turn out) moral disputes do reduce to a clash of personalities, it seems IMO that we almost can't help but consider ourselves "rational deliberators" in pursuit of the "truth" of the matter - which means the disputes don't really go anywhere unless we tacitly believe that they aren't just personality-clashes. (I do find that consciously thinking of them as personality-clashes has a way of defusing them, makes them feel almost like games.)
By analogy...I'm tempted to guess that scientific inquiry is less apt to "get off the ground" if the scientists consciously think of themselves as, I dunno...people who simply have a certain knack for creative imaginative play, who hope for some happy-chance "inspiration" to find its way into their heads and advance the dialogue in interesting ways. "Don't be silly, our success requires strict adherence to the Scientific Method!"
Quite a pickle. I'll be interested as always in seeing where the conversation goes.
DP's comments seem apt. This is the world in which we live:
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:60.5/centery:10.8/zoom:2
https://www.flightradar24.com/44.73,113.51/2
Plus, if we could retreat to our borders (or a sphere of influence), a major increase (not decrease)in defense spending would be required as well as having to deal with fifth column internal threats.
Biden's approach to NATO and Russia seems mostly correct except for being over cautious on Ukraine (no good reason to hold back on ATACMs, tanks (not necessarily M-1s), and aircraft).
BTW, Luxembourg is a member of NATO and Switzerland is a prickly boutique operation that others find convenient from time to time.
s.w., I see there was a fair sized earthquake off Valparaiso.
Any political choice to me at least is based on first: what are the rights of the parties involved; second what is the good involved and third what are the consequences?
Does America have the right to follow options one and two, and is the good involved the good of America, certain classes of Americans or the world?
The key factors to my mind are what has changed in the world since the end of the Cold War?
What will be the consequences of isolationism, naked aggression and of a Pax Americana.
Finally there are many political actors involved which means we would have to adjust our goals to what circumstances permit. This blog is not the console of the Star Trek Enterprise
Some observations on the topic of Prof. Wolff's post. I think one or two of these has already been made in the thread in some way, but anyway...
(1) The post ignores that a great deal of foreign policy these days involves economics, or "geo-economics" (see e.g. China's Belt & Road initiative).
(2) On the question of the U.S. military posture, it is necessary to distinguish -- as the post does not -- between/among: (1) the character and size of the U.S. global military footprint, (2) the number and nature of U.S. alliances, (3) how interventionist or "activist" U.S. foreign policy should be, and (4) what the size and composition of the U.S. 'defense' budget should be (Congress just increased it to more than 800 billion for the coming fiscal year). These issues are connected, but they aren't identical. For example, even if one opted for a moderately interventionist foreign policy, would that require the current "footprint," namely the more than 700 military bases the U.S. has all over the world? I suspect the answer to that is no. (N.b. The Pentagon also divides the entire world up into military "commands."
(3) Turning to the options as outlined in the post, option 1, as described, is not desirable, imo. A world in which the U.S. had no alliances at all and China and Russia had a free hand to do whatever they wanted, and wherever, as long as they didn't directly invade or threaten the U.S.'s own territory would not only produce morally bad consequences (e.g., the likely spread of authoritarian governments and crushing of democratic movements) but would also, over time, produce an intl environment that would not allow the U.S. effectively to compete economically or geo-economically, as it must if the U.S. domestic economy is not to weaken considerably. So option 1 is not only bad morally (or normatively), but also bad from the standpoint of the U.S.'s narrowly construed self-interest.
Option 2 is not as bad, but suffers from some of the same problems. But that does not mean we're left with option 3, "some form of progressive militaristic interventionism," or rather, option 3 is underspecified. It doesn't address where to intervene and where not. Even the U.S. does not have the resources to intervene militarily
in every situation where it might be "progressive" to do so.
[cont. in next box]
[continued]
The current U.S. policy might be called selective interventionism. For instance, the U.S. gives military aid to Ukraine, but it did not intervene, for several reasons, very actively against Russian involvement in Syria, leaving the Russian air force to assist Bashar al- Assad in destroying hospitals and other civilian targets, leveling entire cities, reducing a fair part of the country to rubble, and producing huge numbers of internally displaced people and refugees (there is a global refugee crisis of unprecedented proportions and has been for the last 15-20 years or so). On the other hand, the U.S. funded a lot of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, until Congress during the Trump admin cut the funding (although I think it didn't stop entirely). Or to take another example, the U.S. has put sanctions on the brutal military govt in Myanmar but (on the whole wisely, I think) it hasn't sent in soldiers to overthrow the regime.
In other words, saying you want option 3 does not answer where to intervene and under what circumstances. Nor does a version of option 3 necessarily require the current 700+ military bases scattered all over the world.
Nor does option 3 answer one of the most pressing and contested questions in U.S. foreign policy, namely how best to respond to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive int'l stance. Nor do the options as laid out in the post really take account of the current environment, in which Russia wages war in Ukraine, China has ordered its military to be capable of the "reunification" of Taiwan in ten years (which is not to say they will nec. take the military option), Xi Jingping has consolidated his power in a way that no Chinese leader has since Mao, and North Korea test-fires missiles w regularity. Recently North Korea sent drones over South Korean airspace that the South Koreans did not detect.
To state these facts is not, to be sure, to say exactly how they should be responded to -- a description of the situation is not necessarily pregnant, so to speak, with a specific policy prescription -- but to lay out options for U.S. foreign policy in a sort of empirical vacuum seems peculiar.
So, to finish, I would reject option 1, note that some assumptions from option 2 are valid (i.e., the western hemisphere shd be and is considered differently by the U.S. than the world as a whole) while not embracing it as set out in the post, and note that option 3 (i.e., use the U.S. military for 'progressive' ends) avoids questions about exactly where to intervene and under what specific circumstances. It would be "progressive" to overthrow the brutal military junta in Myanmar, but doing so wd, at the least, heighten tensions w China and also, esp if done unilaterally and w/o UN Sec Council approval, arguably violate intl law. So does option 3 mean the U.S. shd overthrow the Myanmar junta or not? As the option is stated, it's not really clear.
Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best in 1776:
“We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men [and women] are created equal, that they are endowed … with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [and women], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Those SELF-EVIDENT, unalienable rights belong not only those residing in the Untied States, but to those residing in Latin America, in South Africa, in Israel and the West Bank, in Ukraine, and in Russia, unalienable rights which those who reside in these countries have a SELF-EVIDENT duty to respect the unalienable rights of those living in other countries, so that might does not make right, and imperialist pigs – regardless where they reside - do not have a right to exploit others – regardless where they reside. Because these rights are SELF-EVIDENT they do not have to be, and cannot be, proved via a logical syllogism. And the best foreign policy of the Untied States is that policy which is most successful in securing these rights to American citizens, and to citizens of other countries, to the extent that its financial and human resources can enable it to do so. without undermining the ability of the United States to secure these rights for its own citizens.
aaall
"if we could retreat to our borders (or a sphere of influence), a major increase (not decrease) in defense spending would be required"
I don't follow your logic there (which is not to say I favor that option).
"as well as having to deal with fifth column internal threats"
a "fifth column" in this context refers to U.S. residents or citizens (allegedly or actually) sympathetic to a foreign power and is to me somewhat redolent of the McCarthy era or of Japanese internment (neither of which one shd look back on approvingly, of course).
aaall,
No earthquake near Valparaiso, but one in the south of Peru, which was felt in the north of Chile which is a long way from Valparaiso.
https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/region-de-arica-y-parinacota/2022/12/28/reportan-que-sismo-en-el-sur-de-peru-se-percibio-fuertemente-en-region-de-arica.shtml
Distance between Arica (on the border with Peru) and Valparaiso is 1,600 kilometers measured by a straight line, much more if you follow the highway.
Marc
"Now, I am quite sure that one of the beliefs that Pope Benedict firmly and unequivocally believes is that human life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion at any stage of a woman’s pregnancy equates to murder and is morally wrong. Most of the individuals who comment on this blog, including myself, reject this belief – with the exception, perhaps, of Michael Llenos - and maintain that human life does not begin at conception, but at some later time during the pregnancy, although there is probably no consensus among us on what that point in time is."
Knowing how a Roman Catholic thinks a certain way is probably just as important as knowing why a Roman Catholic thinks that way. Most religious people base their beliefs on judgements--& R.C.'s are of no exception. The philosopher Epictetus once said that judgements are invincible compared to other forms of argument.
If someone wants to tell a religiously Jewish person they are wrong to think religiously as a Jew, they are most effective at the judgements a religious Jew uses: which is the Torah. If you want to tell a Muslim something wrong about their religion, you use the Koran. And it's the New Testament for Christians & Roman Catholics. If you use a shared text, like a Protestant might try to refute a Mormon with the Old or New Testaments that are part of their scriptures, it's not as good as refuting a Mormon with the Book of Mormon itself. The only problem with using a specific judgement against a religion specifically based on that judgement is that that part of scripture supports that religion more than other less particular scripture judgements. I once asked a Muslim why John the Baptist's Father was mute only three days in the Koran while in the Gospel of Luke he was mute for eight to ten months, but his clever answer was both strong & weak. The strong part was that in the very beginning of Luke's Gospel, Luke writes that he was writing down a history for Theophiles like a normal historian. The weak part of that man's argument was that one has to originally believe in the idea that the Koran was given to Muhammad by via the angel Gabriel by via God--a judgement most Christians don't know about or ascribe to even if they are told about it later. Obviously because it's not in the Bible. E.g. this whole idea of anti-abortion comes from this judgement from the Old Testament (or Tanakh):
Jeremiah 1:4-5
"4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Of course this judgement also is probably backed up by judgements of many bishops, priests, monks, & nuns over the years. As Epictetus said: judgements are invincible when they are balanced against reasoning skills--just as aged meat & wine is superior in flavor to the same new food stuffs. Of course I'm not saying any of this stuff is good or bad; I'm just trying to explain how religious people think. So if you use a shared judgement in argumentation it is not as effective in using a non-shared more particular judgement to that specific religion. The only problem with the more particular judgement is that it backs up the religious views of the person you are using it against more particularly. While trying to reason against someone else's judgements with just reason alone would be mostly futile.
My sense is that you are not fond of the concept of "imperialism." Is this true? Is imperialism not an expression of more advanced stages of capital accumulation? - which in turn suggests a proper foreign policy.
I thought I would tack on this statement from a friend (close to Marcuse in '72), survived an assassination attempt by a right wing group at the time that was infiltrated by the FBI, which did nothing to prevent the attempt and I met him at UMass where he was in the Econ department there. His name is Peter Bohmer, now retired. Here's his take on Ukraine:
"Briefly on Ukraine! I have spoken publicly, mainly on-line, about this war a few times. I differ in my analysis and perspective from some of my friends on the left, especially those in other countries. While I believe US imperialism bears responsibility for pushing NATO’s expansion eastward and the U.S. should have explicitly stated that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO, the Russian invasion of February 24th is criminal, immoral, unjustified and illegal. The Russian invasion should not be justified in any way. Zelensky’s vision of Ukraine is a totally neoliberal society. Nonetheless, I believe that Ukraine has the right to defend itself and I support the sending of defensive weapons to Ukraine. I support total Russian withdrawal of its military from Ukraine where Ukraine plays a major and key role in the negotiations and settlement. I strongly support the Ukrainian left, most of whom are actively fighting against the Russian invasion. A possible settlement is similar to the situation that existed before the February 24th invasion with but with guarantees of Ukrainian security and with the future of the status of the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region to be negotiated further. Ukraine’s foreign debt should be forgiven. I am dismayed by those who reduce every global problem to US imperialism. While US imperialism continues as a major cause of oppression globally, Russian imperialism is also wrong and should be opposed."
Marc
"I'm just trying to explain how religious people think."
Sorry about the rant. I'm not trying to say that you think that way, or that everyone thinks that way, just that many think that way--especially Christians & Roman Catholics. I didn't mean to sound so patronizing.
What should American foreign policy look like in the 21st century?:
1. An American foreign policy in the 21st century should recognize, before anything else, that there can be NO more foreign policy. Every foreign policy is domestic policy!
In view of the ecological challenges facing all mankind, any form of isolationism is a mortal danger. We live on a planet that sustains 8 billion people. This planet is the object of domestic policy.
Michael Llenos,
Thank you for your comment, which I do not find offensive in the least, and certainly do not regard it as a rant.
And I take your point. Trying to convince a religious person that their religious beliefs are erroneous is generally futile if they derive their religious beliefs from their religion’s religious texts, which they believe are divinely inspired. Such a defense would not persuade, or be deemed sufficient by, most people who read and/or comment on Prof. Wolff’s blog because they generally reject religion as a legitimate source of truth, as Prof. Brian Leiter does in his book “Why Tolerate Religion.” My point was the even irreligious people are unable to justify their convictions regarding what they believe is true even without resort to religious texts, because even among irreligious people resort to reason is insufficient, as I have found regarding numerous issues I have commented regarding on this blog, including the issue of why Lori Smith’s has a legitimate right to design wedding announcements for heterosexual couples, but not same-sex couples. People generally, both religious and irreligious, have convictions which they are unable to defend except to say that those are their convictions, their convictions are correct, and those who reject their convictions are wrong. On what basis they believe these convictions they cannot say, yet they believe their convictions are superior to, and more correct than, Pope Benedict’s.
When I raise these questions, their rejoinder to me is, “Well, smarty pants, on what basis do you believe your convictions are correct?” When I respond that I believe my convictions are correct because their rectitude is self-evident to me, that, e.g., Lori Smith has a right not to be compelled to engage in speech which is antithetical to her religious beliefs, even if I do not share her religious beliefs, because I believe that compelling speech, under any circumstances, even in the context of same-sex marriage, is indefensible is self-evident, just as Thomas Jefferson believed that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights is self-evident; that enslaving other human beings and compelling them to provide free labor is morally wrong is self-evident; that conception does not per se create a human being, but a potential human being, the termination of which is not immoral, is self-evident; that bashing in the skull of a newborn human being is immoral is self-evident; etc., they reject this contention as inadequate, because claiming that the truth of some moral proposition is self-evident is specious – and yet they continue to insist that their convictions are correct without offering an explanation as to why they believe their convictions are correct. Some even claim that they are not claiming that their convictions are correct, even as they insist that the convictions of those who disagree with them are incorrect. So, your point that trying to question the basis for a religious person’s convictions is futile is well-taken, but it is no more futile than trying to question an irreligious person as to the basis for their convictions.
By the way, your reference to the quotation from Jeremiah reminded me of the movie Nine Days, which I have commented on in prior threads and have recommended as one of the most creative and imaginative movies I have seen in a long time. I purchased several copies of the movie from Amazon and gave them away as holiday gifts. I believe you would enjoy it. A streaming version can be purchased online.
Marc:
Just to dip a very tiny toe into very deep meta-ethical waters, I have to ask:
How does claiming that one's basic moral beliefs are self-evidently true differ from saying "I really, really, really, REALLY (and I mean really!) believe them"?
David,
Because it goes beyond saying, "I really, really, really, .... believe them." It states that one believes them because they are self-evidently true.
You and I have been round and round on this, and the last time we engaged, you argued that you had a better defense for certain moral convictions which relied on reason and the reduction ad absurdum of contrary arguments. I responded that, ultimately, your own position relies on irreducible principles that you cannot defend by utilizing your methodology, except to maintain that they are self-evidently true. That is where we left our debate, and I have not received a response to my last point, which we continued by email.
Marc:
What precisely does "self-evidently true" mean?
How does one determine that a moral belief is self-evidently true as opposed merely to being firmly believed?
David,
I do not have time to respond to your question, and those of others on the subsequent thread, right now because I have to finish writing an appellate brief which is due by midnight. I will make my feeble attempt to respond to these questions tomorrow. Right now I will just say, on what basis does one believe that the cogito is true for oneself? What other defense is there than that it is self-evident, and not merely that one really, really, really believes it? Is the cogito – the realization that I am at this moment experiencing thoughts and sense perceptions – the only belief that one can have that has this immediacy of being self-evidently true?
Marc
While I frankly do not have time or inclination to read the zillionth iteration of this debate (if that's what it is), as a pt of historical interest it was not Jefferson who came up w the phrase "self-evident" in the Dec of Independence; his original draft had other language. It was Franklin who suggested substituting "self-evident" for Jefferson's original wording (which I don't recall offhand).
LFC,
Whatever.
s.w., This is useful. I have it set for updates in real time. We had a 6.4 last week that killed a couple of people and damaged some bridges and structures while knocking out the electricity for most of the day. At least I know I can build a structure that can take at least a 7. The one off Valparaiso is here:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-42.68244,-81.12305&extent=-19.64259,-51.94336&updateNotifications=true&range=week&magnitude=4.5&listOnlyShown=true&showUSFaults=true&baseLayer=terrain&distanceUnit=mi&settings=true
LFC, options one and two leaves the rest of the world to the tender mercies of Russia and China. No way that ends well. Besides # 2 seems inherently imperialistic - do we really want to go there? We are currently dealing with the blow back from making Central America safe for United Fruit.
#1 increases defense spending because other nations have agency and the response to a US retreat would be more aggressive actions from other nations.
I suggest you listen to folks like Tucker Carlson who is beloved on Russian TV. We can survive a few tankies and isolationists just as we would have survived a few Communists and fellow travelers back in the day without resorting to all the unpleasantness. BTW, while they were firing on Commies and pinkos, Conservative cadres were beavering away setting up the future in which we now live.
There seems to be a sort of fascist international that loves them some Putin and other far right authoritarians. The lumpen is always attracted to the far Right and decades of Conservatism and Neo-liberalism have given us plenty of lumpen.
The first two options are impossible while the third is hard but inescapable. As far as I am aware there's no there there with Burma (imagine a U.S. after assassins cutting loose in Independence Hall in 1787 and taking out Washington, Madison, Franklin, etc.).
"While I believe US imperialism bears responsibility for pushing NATO’s expansion eastward..."
I believe "pulled" is a better term. Poland and the Baltic nations, etc. understood Russia and really wanted to join NATO. While LFC disagrees, "disappointed and frustrated" best describes Russian elite response to that expansion.
--
Viva la Quince Brigada
Just poppin' in, taking a break from fighting duplicity and injustice in the State of Michigan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbd-VOrAUcA
aaall
I said nothing at all in this thread about Russian elite response to NATO expansion.
P.s. and I don't understand yr remarks about Burma/Myanmar. But never mind.
Lfc, NATO was directed at JF's comment, sorry. Re: Burma. Back in 1947 a few folks walked into a meeting of Burmese leaders with Sten guns and murdered several key actors. Rather destabilizing and the nation never recovered.
Marc,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zajeUWipqbU
aaall,
You give me Christy Moore, and I give you Utah Phillips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAmFWbjO-Zs
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_B5KkxetQU
And here, for laughs, is Utah Phillips exquisite anecdote about the worst job he ever had. Titled “Good Though”:
https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube%2C+utah+phillips%2C+cow+pie&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS927US927&oq=youtube%2C+utah+phillips%2C+cow+pie&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2.11543j0j15&sourceid=chrom
Post a Comment