News USA's Moral Obligation to Spread Democracy: Thoughts?

[wasteofo2]

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement? I personally think that the USA does have an obligation to spread Democratic ideals to other nations, but I can't really think of a single concrete reason we do, besides it's just the right thing to do in general.

 

[dekoi]

Because democracy is the most efficient and productive political system out there. Not to say of course, that it is a very good one.

Christianity teaches to "spread the Good News" because Christians believe their belief is good. Therefore, if we believe, or know, that Democracy is the best political system, is it not natural for us to preach it?

 

[wasteofo2]

Because democracy is the most efficient and productive political system out there. Not to say of course, that it is a very good one.

Christianity teaches to "spread the Good News" because Christians believe their belief is good. Therefore, if we believe, or know, that Democracy is the best political system, is it not natural for us to preach it?

What is Democracy most efficient and productive in?

It may be our nature to want to spread the good news, but why are we morally obligated to do so? What moral code would we be violating if we didn't?

 

[dekoi]

What is Democracy most efficient and productive in?

It may be our nature to want to spread the good news, but why are we morally obligated to do so? What moral code would we be violating if we didn't?

Democracy is efficient in general terms. Although forgive me for being misleading, it is not the most efficient. Most efficient is of course, a society led by a totalitarian government. Either way, democracy, like any other political system, is in its own nature efficient. If it was not efficient, little people would follow it.

By not spreading the "good news", i believe we are actually going against our own morality. If our morality leads us towards the good (or our conscience, which is founded on moralit), and teaching others what is good and what is bad is itself good ... then obviously by not teaching others what is good, we are in fact doing what is wrong.

In other words: like you said, spreading the good news is our nature. Going against our nature is not good -- common sense shows us this.

I expect counter-arguments.

 

[Kerrie]

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement? I personally think that the USA does have an obligation to spread Democratic ideals to other nations, but I can't really think of a single concrete reason we do, besides it's just the right thing to do in general.

interesting that you bring this up when America is considred a Republic:
Republic vs. Democracy

the major difference this site points out is a democracy is a whole body of citizens that acts as the sovereignty while the republic is all about individuals. i think we need to define exactly what is "democratic".

 

[russ_watters]

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement? I personally think that the USA does have an obligation to spread Democratic ideals to other nations, but I can't really think of a single concrete reason we do, besides it's just the right thing to do in general.

I agree, but I'm surprised you can't figure out why. You do know about the Moral Imperative, right?

edit: well, now you have - that's what dekoi's post is about. Put more simply, the Moral Imperative says that if you see an immoral situation and have the power to correct it, your own morality mandates that you do so. Its the good Samaratin morality.

And not to change the subject, but the Moral Imperative is one of the ways to test your own morality to find out if it can be applied universally - if it fits with the Universal Morality.

 

[wasteofo2]

interesting that you bring this up when America is considred a Republic:
Republic vs. Democracy

the major difference this site points out is a democracy is a whole body of citizens that acts as the sovereignty while the republic is all about individuals. i think we need to define exactly what is "democratic".

Well, I made this post because it's the Lincoln-Douglas debate topic for Nov/Dec, and it was pathetic how easily the pro-democracy cases were being crushed by the anti-democracy cases. In the debate format, the person who takes the affirmative stance (we do have a moral obligation) gets to define the terms. The way I've defined democratic ideals are:

Democratic Ideals - Obviously, the primary “Democratic ideal” is that of voting. With voting, people express their views, wants and needs, so spreading “democratic ideals”, does not mean spreading American ways of life, only spreading the ideal that people should manage their own government, have it represent their own views and decide what is best for themselves. However, intrinsic to all people (besides those who wish to subjugate others) are certain ideals, such as the right to Life, Liberty, Property, Freedom, Security and Stability. This can be proven by the universal inclusion of these rights in the constitutions of truly Democratic nations.

 

[Bystander]

Moral obligation to whom? Posterity, perhaps, but not much of anyone else. Spread the principles? Sure --- it's smart, good business, and saves a lot of haggling with the unlike cultures. Call it what it is --- don't drape a lot of handwaving (morality) over it --- it's survival.

 

[cyfin]

Your answer can be found in our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

America, and all People, have an obligation to help one another. Not to start a flame war, but take Iraq for example. America would be obligated to help them become a democracy when the majority of the people desire to abolish their current government for the reasons above. This does not mean the need to stay a democracy. If a country is ruled by a "dictator", and the people are happy, then that's perfectly fine. The dictator has the "consent of the governed". After Iraq becomes a democracy, they are free to choose a different type of government. America's obligation has been fulfilled. The people's choice has been made. Democracy can be a stepping stone to other governments. All democracy does is give the people the choice. That is the moral obligation of mankind: To ensure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[russ_watters]

Moral obligation to whom? Posterity, perhaps, but not much of anyone else.

To yourself, of course (unless you believe in God...)!

Really, this is a separate question though: why be moral in the first place? This thread assumes that we should be moral, though doesn't ask why.

 

[Kerrie]

To yourself, of course (unless you believe in God...)!

Really, this is a separate question though: why be moral in the first place? This thread assumes that we should be moral, though doesn't ask why.

why be moral? so others do not steal from you or kill those you love. morals aren't just a set of standards for yourself, but how your actions affect others.

 

[russ_watters]

why be moral? so others do not steal from you or kill those you love. morals aren't just a set of standards for yourself, but how your actions affect others.

Again, I don't consider this relevant to the initial question, but now that we're on it...

How does my being moral prevent someone else from stealing? I make my choices, they make theirs. I choose to be moral - how does that choice make them moral unless I also choose to enforce my morality upon them? This sounds like the Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's fine, but how does my following it in any way cause other people to follow it?

My reason for asserting that only you can choose to be moral (only you can prevent forest fires... ) is that no one can control what is going on inside your head. Locking a murderer up in jail doesn't force him to be moral, it only restricts his ability to act on his morals.

edit: I didn't answer the question...

So why would I choose to be moral? Three reasons (in no particular order):

1. Its the Right thing to do.
2. It makes me feel good.
3. If others choose to follow my lead (and this is the one relevant to this thread...), the world will be a better place.

 

[Bystander]

WO2, sorry 'bout knocking this off on a tangent. I'll bow out with a couple preference statements that may,or may not, be useful to you: 1) I do not believe there is any absolute moral standard, therefore, no absolute moral obligations; 2) internal moral standards (can I face myself in the mirror?) are irrelevant (consider what Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, J. Dahmer, et al can/could tolerate); 3) "what makes sense" in any situation (to me) is to conduct myself in a manner that results in minimum unintended consequences that have to be dealt with subsequently (10 commandments minus religion make a very useful set of rules of thumb). Morality? Nah --- just common sense, good business, "work smarter, not harder" type stuff.

 

[Integral]

Actually, the most efficient and arguably the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. That is were the SINGLE ruler with all of the power only wields the power for the benefit of the populace. The closest that our civilization has ever seen of this form of government was Prussia under Frederic the Great.

Unfortunately it is simply impossible guarantee that a dictator will be benevolent.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I would rephrase Winston Churchill and say Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.

I think the United States has an obligation to contribute to the world in a positive amount that outways negative things done by the U.S. as a whole.

Since logically the future will be better with more Democracy, I think the United States should spread Democracy, but is not obligated. I think the obligation has been created to make up for the lack of contribution to humanity by other countries and the individuals in every country that don't do their part.

 

[the number 42]

Your answer can be found in our Declaration of Independence...

It is self-evidently true that the sun revolves around the earth, and it is self-evidently true that some Americans think the Earth revolves around the US. Export democracy? Try getting it right yourselves first, please. Ever heard of PR?

 

[Kerrie]

I would rephrase Winston Churchill and say Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.

I think the United States has an obligation to contribute to the world in a positive amount that outways negative things done by the U.S. as a whole.

Since logically the future will be better with more Democracy, I think the United States should spread Democracy, but is not obligated. I think the obligation has been created to make up for the lack of contribution to humanity by other countries and the individuals in every country that don't do their part.

the pledge of alligiance specifically refers to our country as a republic, not a democracy. i think we need to explore and understand the difference in this topic as well.

 

[russ_watters]

Since a Republic is a form of democracy, I don't think the distinction is all that important for this thread.

 

[dekoi]

I thought more about this statement.

It seems pretty awkward to say that 'we' [America] have "a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations", when we ourselves are not part of a democracy.

If you call the Unites States a democratic government, then my uncle's name is Mickey Mouse.
1.) Probably half of the voters in America base their decisions relative to this constructed reality that they have been mislead to believe by the media.

2.) Both of the potential presidents are sophists to the lowest level.

"...a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations..."

If only there were any Democractic ideals to begin with...
3.)

democracy, republic, commonwealth -- (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

Let's go down the list shall we?
A political system: Yes
Supreme Power in the body of citizens: Do floundering, mislead citizens count?
People who are elected to represent [leaders]: Do leaders who make contradictions, and are politically correct to the next level, count?

4.) Didn't my old friend Karl once say that a democratic government is only filled with memebers who are messengers of their corporate owners?

 

[kouga]

What is MORAL in your definition? how can we judge if we have an obligation without defining what is and isn't MORAL?

 

[kouga]

wat of the negative side??

 

[Kerrie]

Since a Republic is a form of democracy, I don't think the distinction is all that important for this thread.

Russ, I am surprised you say this since we are a nation now divided by the red and blue...did you read my link?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I am surprised you say this since we are a nation now divided by the red and blue...did you read my link?

Your link spins it, but still says it right: a republic is a democracy, but a democracy isn't necessarily a republic. From the definitions:

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation[emphasis added]

Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.[emphasis added]

Notice how they overlap. Frankly though, the definition of republic there is a poor one for showing the distinction - it almost looks like its the definition of democracy, mislabeled. Ie, there is no such thing as a "direct" republic, but a republic is an "indirect" democracy.

Two synonyms for "republic":
"Indirect democracy"
"Representative democracy"

Wikipedia does an adequate job with the distinction:

Representative democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests... Modern liberal democracies are important examples of representative democracy. It could be argued that this term is synonymous with "republic".[emphasis added]

 

[Rader]

There seems a contradiction to this question.

The United States has a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations

The question implies that either Democratic governments are moral or the United States spreads inmoral ideas.

 

[russ_watters]

There seems a contradiction to this question.

The question implies that either Democratic governments are moral or the United States spreads inmoral ideas.

How does it implly that the US spreads immoral ideas? Democratic governments are moral (as a form of government) and the US spreads democracy. I see no contradiction.

 

[the number 42]

1/ Just because YOU think something is good, does this give you the right or obligation to impose it on everyone else? Why can't we 'do unto others as THEY would have us do unto them'.

2/ The US is hardly a shining example of the will of the people being reflected by its government. Leaving half of the population of the States seething for want of a decent president hardly demonstrates the spirit of democracy.

3/ PR means 'proportional representation'. I get the impression that nobody in the US has ever heard of this voting system, let alone sersiously consider it.

 

[Burnsys]

How does it implly that the US spreads immoral ideas? Democratic governments are moral (as a form of government) and the US spreads democracy. I see no contradiction.

America is not a democracy it's a two party dictatorship, and both partys share the same interests...

And since when can you "Spread Democracy" by the use of brutal force?
That is not democracy, that is military dictatorship.. like in irak. or afganistan, or every country america government decide to invade... of courseeee. they get in the countrys and kill becouse they are good and want democracy for us... Let me tell you something, the so called democracy your government want to spread is called bussineses.. for them and for the corporations who support them.

What kind of democracy are you talking about when you need millons of dolars to be president.. or when corporations pay for political campaings... and when you can olny chose between 2 people out of 120 millons?

Thanks.. here in latin america don't wan't your democracy... pleaseee, stay out from here!

 

[Ludwig]

Come on guys, don't you realize that this "moral duty to spread democracy" is only an excuse to invade other countries for economic reasons? Besides, has any American president ever bothered to ask the poor peoples of invaded nations, such as Iraq, whether they were really willing to have their houses bombed and their children killed so that they could vote for president? I have a hard time understanding why people believe this shallow piece of demagogy.

What about the real moral duty to help spread wealth? Do you think it's fair that people in the so-called developed nations spend so much money on meaningless consumerism, while billions around the Earth barely manage to survive? Isn't it immoral for a person to buy a SUV when they could just as well drive a small car and use the money to save lives in poor countries?

The truth is, we don't really care. I'm not ready to give up my comfortable way of life, and neither are you, so let's cut the nonsense and assume that we are immoral, period. We can't pretend to spread democracy or wealth when we're not ready to first spread honesty.

 

[Aquamarine]

The US and other democratic countries should spread democracy if for no other reasons than pure self-interest. Democracies never goes to war against each other. If the whole world was democratic most military spending could be cut. Not to mention problems like attacks by nukes or other WMD.

 

[Burnsys]

The US and other democratic countries should spread democracy if for no other reasons than pure self-interest. Democracies never goes to war against each other. If the whole world was democratic most military spending could be cut. Not to mention problems like attacks by nukes or other WMD.

nonesene... i have allready post a list with all America military interventions in democratic countrys.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47519&page=4

America was the only country who used nuclear weapons, and against civilians... 100.000 kills.

America has the largest stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world.

 

[Aquamarine]

nonesene... i have allready post a list with all America military interventions in democratic countrys.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47519&page=4

America was the only country who used nuclear weapons, and against civilians... 100.000 kills.

America has the largest stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world.

No countries of those mentioned were democratic and in war with the US.

Regarding the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, I suggest you think about the alternative cost in lives of Japanese civilians and Japanese and American soldiers, if there had been an invasion of Japan.

Look here for some borderline cases were two democratic countries have made war, none convincing:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM

 

[Ludwig]

America was the only country who used nuclear weapons, and against civilians... 100.000 kills.

A few years ago I visited the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima. I was quite surprised to notice that the Japanese do not hate the Americans for what they did. Although the nuclear bombs brought unbelievable suffering and destruction to a lot of innocent people, the Japanese were no saints either. I suppose their feeling of guilty over Korea and China makes them see the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki under a different light.

As a visitor to the museum though, I felt quite relieved I'm not American. I wouldn't be able to bear the shame.

America has the largest stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world.

And thank God it's them and not somebody else! Can you imagine all that stuff in the hands of a nation with a bad need for land or natural resources, like most countries in Asia, the Middle East, or even Europe?

To be fair, as a people Americans are quite peaceful and full of good intentions. The only problem with them is their romantic view of international politics, which their leaders exploit as much as they can. So a guy like Bush presents America both as a source of goodness to the world as well as the target of evildoers spread in every corner of the globe, and finds a lot of support for such a simplistic, deceptive vision. That I have a hard time understanding.

 

[Ludwig]

Regarding the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, I suggest you think about the alternative cost in lives of Japanese civilians and Japanese and American soldiers, if there had been an invasion of Japan.

I have heard this argument a lot of times, but I never saw anyone offer the actual number they have in mind. So instead of 100,000 farmers, students, and housewives, how many soldiers would have died had the US invaded Japan?

By the way, your statement is part of that romantic vision I spoke about in my previous post. It is a well-known fact that Japan had already lost the war before the bombings, but the Americans (the government) needed to show off their military might to assert their position of leadership in the world. But Americans (the people) are led to believe the bombing was a good thing, because it saved lives not only of Americans but of Japanese as well. That is silly beyond belief.

 

[russ_watters]

1/ Just because YOU think something is good, does this give you the right or obligation to impose it on everyone else? Why can't we 'do unto others as THEY would have us do unto them'.

Do what our enemies want us to do? They want us to die. Sorry, I'm not inclined to obey that. But further, can your edict be extended universally? I mean - if everyone did what the US does (instill democracy), the entire world would look like western europe. I consider that a good thing, and I wager the vast majority of those in 3rd world countries would like a piece of that prosperity as well.

2/ The US is hardly a shining example of the will of the people being reflected by its government. Leaving half of the population of the States seething for want of a decent president hardly demonstrates the spirit of democracy.

Excuse me? That's the definition of democracy!

3/ PR means 'proportional representation'. I get the impression that nobody in the US has ever heard of this voting system, let alone sersiously consider it.

Have you heard of the US House of Representatives?

 

[Aquamarine]

It is of course difficult to estimate the number of dead and wounded from an invasion. One can look at Okinawa, 100 000+ dead civilians, 100 000+ dead Japanese soldiers, 12 000 dead American soldiers, 38 000 wounded American Soldiers.

For some arguments for both sides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Supporters of the bombing also argue that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. The conventional bombardment and blockade were killing tens of thousands each week in Japan, directly and indirectly, and the US Navy's 'Operation Starvation' was aptly named. Also, as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of ~200,000 per month. Supporters also point to an order given by General Tojo before his resignation as premier in July of 1944, that all Allied POW's, numbering over 100,000, to be executed at the first sign of an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Regarding the cost of an invasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

A study done for Navy Secretary Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 – 4 million American casualties, including 400, – 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

 

[russ_watters]

The US and other democratic countries should spread democracy if for no other reasons than pure self-interest. Democracies never goes to war against each other. If the whole world was democratic most military spending could be cut. Not to mention problems like attacks by nukes or other WMD.

This is true, but I also really do care about the genocide in the former Yugoslavia, the people lowered into plastic shredders in Iraq, the genocide in Rwanda, the famine and war in Somalia, the current genocide in Rwanda (that the UN is ignoring), etc.

Come on guys, don't you realize that this "moral duty to spread democracy" is only an excuse to invade other countries for economic reasons?

I have a hard time understanding why people believe this shallow piece of demagogy.

The truth is, we don't really care. I'm not ready to give up my comfortable way of life, and neither are you, so let's cut the nonsense and assume that we are immoral, period.

Speak for yourself, Ludwig - you don't speak for me and you don't speak for the leaders of our country (Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Hati, etc contain no economic interests for the US) Sure, I care about my money - but I honestly do care about the people I listed above. And as a former member of the military, I was willing to fight and risk my life to help them.

As a visitor to the museum though, I felt quite relieved I'm not American. I wouldn't be able to bear the shame.

I'm going to ignore Burnsys's irrelevant distraction, but I couldn't let this go. Shame of what? Winning a defensive war with tactics that overall were more humane then our enemies? Causing Japan to, in less than 30 years, become a top economic power and a stable democracy? No, I'm proud of our overall actions in WWII and the atom bombs cause me no shame - they don't stand out as any worse than other bombings. You do know how many died in Tokyo the night it was fire-bombed, right...? Dresden?? London?

I have heard this argument a lot of times, but I never saw anyone offer the actual number they have in mind. So instead of 100,000 farmers, students, and housewives, how many soldiers would have died had the US invaded Japan?

Your characterization is misleading, since both cities were industrial, but the answer is the projections were in the millions - that's soldiers and civilians, as well as half a million American soldiers. Remember, the Japanese were none too protective of their own civilians (and indeed, many civilians comitted suicide rather than be captured).

 

[selfAdjoint]

The House of Representatives in the US is not chosen by proportional representation. The two requirements, that the number of representatives be capped at 500, and that every state have at least one representative, means that the single representative from a thinly populated state is elected by far fewer voters than one of the several representatives from a populous state. Futhermore the states have nearly absolute control over the detail of the electoral districts, leading to gerrymandering which further distorts the one-man-one-vote principle.

Proportional representation is used in various European countries, and notably in Israel, where it has had rather poor results (amplified power to splinter parties). But I don't think it's used at all in the US. One form of it is that the various parties each field a slate of candidates for the legislature. In the election each slate captures a certain fraction of the votes. Then the parties can return a number of candidates from each slate in proportion to the fraction of the vote they took. So minority parties get some representation from every district.

 

[the number 42]

Originally Posted by the number 42
1/ Just because YOU think something is good, does this give you the right or obligation to impose it on everyone else? Why can't we 'do unto others as THEY would have us do unto them'.

Do what our enemies want us to do? They want us to die.

So you think all others are enemies of the US?

Originally Posted by the number 42
2/ The US is hardly a shining example of the will of the people being reflected by its government. Leaving half of the population of the States seething for want of a decent president hardly demonstrates the spirit of democracy.

Excuse me? That's the definition of democracy!

Lets talk about the spirit of democracy, not a mathematical definition. I'm not a political scientist, but as far as I can tell democracy was designed as an alternative to kings, popes, & their henchmen. The idea was that the will of The People is represented by those who govern them. Note: not HALF The People. Call me naive for thinking that you can get, say, two thirds of voters to agree on having a single party as leader, but the fact that many elections that use a 'first past the post' system have yeilded governments which a minority of voters have endorsed suggests that this system fails to represent The People. After the Bush/Kerry election a slim majority of the people are deliriously happy, but a large minority of the people are very unhappy. I don't think this fairly represents the will of people i.e. thwarts the spirit of democracy.

Originally Posted by the number 42
3/ PR means 'proportional representation'. I get the impression that nobody in the US has ever heard of this voting system, let alone sersiously consider it.

Have you heard of the US House of Representatives?

The HoR also uses the first past the post system, merely reproducing the problem state-by-state instead of nationally. I take it that you are refusing to consider PR as a better way of representing the will of the people?

 

[Ludwig]

Speak for yourself, Ludwig - you don't speak for me.

So have you considered trading down your car and sending the money to a few desperate African families? No? Why not?

And as a former member of the military, I was willing to fight and risk my life to help them.

So you are willing to risk your life, that's very noble. How about donating 30% or your net income to help poor people around the world? It's much less of a sacrifice than giving your life, don't you think? You could still buy a lot of useless stuff with the 70% left, while a few families would be able to have two nutritious meals a day for the first time in their lives.

Shame of what? Winning a defensive war with tactics that overall were more humane then our enemies?

I do not have anything to add to this. My country was never involved in wars of any kind, so I can't really relate to this feeling that winning a war is something to be proud of. In my country, we are very proud of the fact that we never engaged in one.

if everyone did what the US does (instill democracy), the entire world would look like western europe. I consider that a good thing, and I wager the vast majority of those in 3rd world countries would like a piece of that prosperity as well.

Now do you know that the fastest-growing economy in the world is China, a communist dictatorship? And did you know that many Latin American countries experienced tremendous growth in the 70's, under strict military dictatorship, and when democracy was installed in the 80's they went down a slump from which, to this day, they have not yet recovered? Being interested in wars, perhaps you might recall that Germany emerged from a deep economic crisis after Hitler's ascension to power? You certainly learned in school that the Soviet Union changed from a rural society into an industrialized one in less than a decade, a real miracle, during Stalin's regime?

Oh, you didn't know those things? Well, that would explain your senseless remark above.

 

[Rader]

How does it implly that the US spreads immoral ideas?

If you examine the quote: The United States has a moral obligation to spread Democratic ideals in other nations, this has one very fundamental implication to examine. Morality is choice to do good, to others, in consideration, as if you would make that choice to act upon yourself. A moral obligation implies, that what you are spreading is moral. A moral obligation to spread immoral principles besides being illogical, is a contradiction.

So are democratic ideas morally correct? A democracy is a system where, all individuals have equal rights, within the system good and evil, is tolerated, so long as a manmade set of laws, by that system, is not broken. Therefore morality and immorality coincide within the system. A democracy is not a "Utopian Moral Code."

Morals are like logic, It seems they have a value from 0 > 1, and everything in between, depending on which human interprets them. But if you read much history, you will notice a subtle change, over what appears to us, as a long time. If you could graph this change in knowledge you would see a valley of cycles, that when a strait line might be drawn through them, you would find a slight increase in good over time. This is the way we perceive the world, the way it ought to be.

Democratic governments are moral (as a form of government) and the US spreads democracy. I see no contradiction.

I hope you understand now where the contradiction is. Cause from your posts it seems that we are in agreement, how the world ought to be, but not in agreement how governments interpret how the world ought to be.

 

[Aquamarine]

Now do you know that the fastest-growing economy in the world is China, a communist dictatorship? And did you know that many Latin American countries experienced tremendous growth in the 70's, under strict military dictatorship, and when democracy was installed in the 80's they went down a slump from which, to this day, they have not yet recovered? Being interested in wars, perhaps you might recall that Germany emerged from a deep economic crisis after Hitler's ascension to power? You certainly learned in school that the Soviet Union changed from a rural society into an industrialized one in less than a decade, a real miracle, during Stalin's regime?
.

Regarding democracy and economic growth, studies give conflicting results between no effect and a positive effect. But not a negative effect. There have been democracies that have become less capitalistic and therefore have had lowered growth, like in some countries in Latin America. But in general, democracies are more capitalistic than dictatorships.

Regarding Germany, the economic miracle was essentially that Hitler put all unemployed into the military or into making weapons. At the time of WWII, the German state was essentially in bankruptcy due to enormous debts.

Regarding Soviet, the communists built an industry and military with the use of slave labour, tens of millions of dead, starvation and declining living standards. Stalin may have increased production in a few areas like steel and tanks but at the cost of the rest of the economy.

Regarding China, the country is certainly no less democratic than before. And it is not communistic dictatorship anymore, it is a capitalistic dictatorship.

 

[Aquamarine]

So have you considered trading down your car and sending the money to a few desperate African families? No? Why not?

So you are willing to risk your life, that's very noble. How about donating 30% or your net income to help poor people around the world? It's much less of a sacrifice than giving your life, don't you think? You could still buy a lot of useless stuff with the 70% left, while a few families would be able to have two nutritious meals a day for the first time in their lives.

I do not have anything to add to this. My country was never involved in wars of any kind, so I can't really relate to this feeling that winning a war is something to be proud of. In my country, we are very proud of the fact that we never engaged in one.

Which country is that?

Regarding foreign aid, here are some interesting links:
http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy.html
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/302.html

 

[russ_watters]

So you think all others are enemies of the US?

We don't just invade countries because we don't like their governments, you know... we envade because the governmentss are our enemy or the enemy of people we care about (such as the people of those countries).

Let's talk about the spirit of democracy...

Your understanding of "the spirit of democracy" is incorrect: it is accepted in a democracy that you can't make everyone happy all the time.

The HoR also uses the first past the post system, merely reproducing the problem state-by-state instead of nationally. I take it that you are refusing to consider PR as a better way of representing the will of the people?

The way the House is populated is a hybrid of proportional representation. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that you can have two winners in an election or that the result of a vote can make all the people happy. That isn't real life. Even if we went with the popular vote for president, there can be only one president - up to just under half of the population will have voted for the loser. Every vote has a winner and a loser.

For representatives, the best way to approximate proportional representation is to chop up districts homogenously. That way, you could end up with more people being happy about the outcome of each election for a representative - but you still won't please everyone.

 

[russ_watters]

So have you considered trading down your car and sending the money to a few desperate African families? No? Why not?

Get off your high horse. You don't know me. Greed may be the only thing driving you, but it isn't the only thing driving me.

I do not have anything to add to this. My country was never involved in wars of any kind, so I can't really relate to this feeling that winning a war is something to be proud of. In my country, we are very proud of the fact that we never engaged in one.

Are you Swiss? You are aware the Swiss neutrality is a lie, right?

Now do you know that the fastest-growing economy in the world is China, a communist dictatorship?

Quite right - since it has moderated to embrace capitalist ideals. See: Hong Kong.

And did you know that many Latin American countries experienced tremendous growth in the 70's

Any government can cause short-term growth. The only way to sustain stable, long term growth is capitalism. Read this carefully: No other form of government/economics has produced the prosperity/stability that capitalism/democracy has.

...perhaps you might recall that Germany emerged from a deep economic crisis after Hitler's ascension to power? You certainly learned in school that the Soviet Union changed from a rural society into an industrialized one in less than a decade, a real miracle, during Stalin's regime?

Yes, and how did things work out in the long-term for those countries? There is a reason neither exist today.

 

[russ_watters]

So are democratic ideas morally correct? A democracy is a system where, all individuals have equal rights, within the system good and evil, is tolerated, so long as a manmade set of laws, by that system, is not broken. Therefore morality and immorality coincide within the system. A democracy is not a "Utopian Moral Code."

Interesting interpretation, but I see it a different way: democracy (as practiced in the west) is the form of government that enables the protection of individual rights, and that is what makes it the most moral.

You're talking about the morality of the people, I'm talking about the morality of the government.

 

[Ludwig]

Get off your high horse. You don't know me. Greed may be the only thing driving you, but it isn't the only thing driving me.

So are you going to make that donation to Africa or not?

I'm trying to make a point here, but you think I'm riding a high horse. Perhaps I'm being too sarcastic; what I'm trying to say is that you don't have to worry about the problems of the world. But if you are going to help people in need, I think giving them money to help them with their basic needs is far more important than bombing their cities to free them from their governments, only to subject them to your own.

But don't take my word for it; ask them! Ask a few Iraqis whether they would prefer if the "coalition of the willing" had donated the billions of dollars they spent "promoting democracy" to help poor Iraqi families. I'm quite sure of their answer, but perhaps you have a different opinion.

Are you Swiss? You are aware the Swiss neutrality is a lie, right?

The world has 258 countries. Try again.

(hint: don't take "Ludwig" as a clue, it's not my real name, just the name of someone I admire)

Quite right - since it has moderated to embrace capitalist ideals. See: Hong Kong. Any government can cause short-term growth. The only way to sustain stable, long term growth is capitalism.

I find it ironic how capitalists resort to mindless propaganda just as often as communists did. No wonder they hated each other so much: two of a kind!

Read this carefully: No other form of government/economics has produced the prosperity/stability that capitalism/democracy has.

I read it carefully. Thanks for the one-line lesson in history, sociology, and macroeconomics. Can I go back to my books now?

Yes, and how did things work out in the long-term for those countries? There is a reason neither exist today.

A thousand years from now, the United States will probably no longer exist. Maybe it will be split into several nations, maybe it will be conquered or destroyed by fanatical Muslims, maybe it will simply collapse on its own weight, like the Roman Empire did. Surely that implies the American system is not good, right? It might seem good for you, but historians of the future will definitely disagree.

But the real issue is, how come your piece of capitalistic propaganda found its way to a discussion of morality in a philosophy forum?

 

[hitssquad]

After the Bush/Kerry election a slim majority of the people are deliriously happy

Bush received votes from 58.6 million people, which is 20% of the population of the United States. A slim majority would have been 150 million votes.

 

[the number 42]

We don't just invade countries because we don't like their governments, you know... we envade because the governmentss are our enemy or the enemy of people we care about

You invade countries because you care about the people there? Very idealistic. I don't suppose you can think of any exceptions to this?

Anyway, you miss the point. I was attempting to hightlight the fallacy of presuming that just because YOU think something is right for you, that it therefore follows that it is right for and desired by others. The term 'others' (as in 'do unto others') seems to have been confused with the word 'enemy'. To clarify, by others I mean anybody outside the US, friends/foes/gardeners etc.

Your understanding of "the spirit of democracy" is incorrect: it is accepted in a democracy that you can't make everyone happy all the time.

A much less idealistic response this time. I didn't say EVERYONE; I mentioned a figure of two thirds, but that's just off the top of my head. But if you really think that 51% of people being happy and 49% feeling angry is a good system, I think your understanding of what makes for a stable society is well off the mark. But where was the third alternative to Bush or Kerry? Nobody would vote for this person as this might 'split the vote' - how are people going to get satisfaction from this sort of system?

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that you can have two winners in an election or that the result of a vote can make all the people happy.

This one again. The day I say that everyone can be happy is the day I invent a way of making Prozac come out of your computer screen.

Every vote has a winner and a loser.

This sounds like something you would tell a child. A bright child might answer: "Only if its a two horse race, Daddy". The average kid just rolls over and sleeps like a baby.

 

[the number 42]

Bush received votes from 58.6 million people, which is 20% of the population of the United States. A slim majority would have been 150 million votes.

Good point.

My figures are very approximate
http://www.theodora.com/wfb/united_states_people.html
but if you adjust for voting population you get more like 100 million for the slim majority of voters. I guess if you look at it in terms of voters only, its a only 60 million Bush voters to 140 million non-Bush voters, about 80 million of whom can't have voted in this election?

But if these figures are roughly correct, then what is all the talk about a large voter turnout? I presume I have got it wrong here somewhere. "There are lies, damn lies, and soundbites", as they say.

 

[kouga]

This sounds like something you would tell a child. A bright child might answer: "Only if its a two horse race, Daddy". The average kid just rolls over and sleeps like a baby.

r u implying that there can only be one winning 'free' country and the rest should be ignored and left to fend for themselves?