The whole thing is an amusing farce, especially given that American foreign policy has been bad for the world and also bad for Americans for some very long time. Certainly the voting population of America 100 years ago would not have regarded, had they been able to see the future, what we have today as worth voting for.
i don't believe in positive obligations, and believe in contracts and agreements. the idea of friendship is people who make a pact to help each other, so there is obligation here.
and coordination should come before do-gooding is the obviuse thing, from my point of view.
it's bad to steal, helping others is supererogatory. I'm in favor of more aid - there are so many worse offenders, that should be canceled first. but it really look to me you just fail to understand the position you disagree with, from the very foundation.
I do think morally speaking that there is a great argument for why everyone should be treating equal without consideration of where they live. However, I do think that the case for that is less persuasive when you deal with countries because the countries existence is based on a partiality towards their citizens. I’m not sure that there could be a country that cared about other people equally, even though that might be morally superior option.
Being for American interests against other countries appeals to what Caplan calls "anti-foreign bias." People are systematically biased against foreigners in political policy.
I know this is not your focus here, but I’d be curious whether you are for or against arming Ukraine on balance, and what your reasoning is. What are the ‘decent practical objections to arming Ukraine’ in your view?
People take this as axiomatic because it helps score brownie points. Could you imagine if someone on national television argued that America's interests aren't primal? They would squander any chance they had, very quickly.
This is really interesting. For whatever reason, I’ve never connected how a rejection of special duties would impact foreign policy relations.
Was anyone on the debate stage claiming that US foreign policy was moral?
The whole thing is an amusing farce, especially given that American foreign policy has been bad for the world and also bad for Americans for some very long time. Certainly the voting population of America 100 years ago would not have regarded, had they been able to see the future, what we have today as worth voting for.
the answer to that is Morality as "Coordination", vs "Do-Gooding":
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PsHgyC4b2PsE3QyxL/morality-as-coordination-vs-altruism
i don't believe in positive obligations, and believe in contracts and agreements. the idea of friendship is people who make a pact to help each other, so there is obligation here.
and coordination should come before do-gooding is the obviuse thing, from my point of view.
it's bad to steal, helping others is supererogatory. I'm in favor of more aid - there are so many worse offenders, that should be canceled first. but it really look to me you just fail to understand the position you disagree with, from the very foundation.
The Onion had a very funny joke making fun of this at the end of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31JNEVHZxO8&t=85s
I do think morally speaking that there is a great argument for why everyone should be treating equal without consideration of where they live. However, I do think that the case for that is less persuasive when you deal with countries because the countries existence is based on a partiality towards their citizens. I’m not sure that there could be a country that cared about other people equally, even though that might be morally superior option.
Being for American interests against other countries appeals to what Caplan calls "anti-foreign bias." People are systematically biased against foreigners in political policy.
Great post!
I know this is not your focus here, but I’d be curious whether you are for or against arming Ukraine on balance, and what your reasoning is. What are the ‘decent practical objections to arming Ukraine’ in your view?
People take this as axiomatic because it helps score brownie points. Could you imagine if someone on national television argued that America's interests aren't primal? They would squander any chance they had, very quickly.
Things I look forward to reading on Bentham's Bulldog:
The view that the aim of raising children is to produce productive citizens is wrong (I agree, so I'm genuinely interested)
The view that the sky is blue is definitely statistically wrong. Most of the time it's literally any other color.
Money is an illusion rather than a thing that can be counted, long essay to follow
Charity only increases the number of people in need
Evil is sometimes good and sometimes evil
I have no idea where you'd take any of this, but it's fascinating to watch, even if I end up skipping over most of the philosophy.
No--that would have bad outcomes. It would result in a bank run
No, that would have bad outcomes