>> > I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully >> > forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia >> > good, US evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response. >> >> OK, I can understand that. >> >> Yes, there is a lot of ideological stuff like that here, it seems. I >> look at geopolitics from a merely strategic point of view, > > Another moral relativist?
No. Moral relativists believe all moral codes of behavior are subjective, and intrinsically equivalent, and cannot be judged nor ranked. I hold no such opinion. If really pressed, I suppose I would say that I think that moral codes are, at their core, ..illusions.. but that isn't really the right word. I guess the word I'm looking for is "artifacts." Yes, I like that. Artifacts in the sense that morality appears due to a fundamental deficiency in our way of observing and thinking about the world: the difficulty in appreciating "the big picture." And the possibility for the double entendre in terms of an object made by a human being, and typically old and culturally normative, tickles my fancy for word play. And such artifacts can be disturbingly grotesque, and immensely beautiful. Yes. I think "artifact" is the perfect, actually. There is behavior. Some of it is destructive, some of it is beneficial. The difficulty is that people believe they can somehow be destructive to others, while benefiting themselves. They believe this is true, because they are unable to see the big picture. It is not possible to harm someone else, without harming oneself; try as you might, be as cunning as you dare, it is futile. When one sees this, one sees morality for what it is: a set of arbitrary, and usually senseless delusional notions, needed to compensate for a basic futility that people persist in engaging in. Morality is the marriage of a delusion, to a futility. The irony is that once perceived, the only sensible way to behave - regardless of the outcome, is to try to benefit as many people as possible, in all circumstances. A way of acting that most people would consider quite moral. It is similar, I think, to the people who get into the free will/determinism thing, and find that by really believing that their actions are pre-determined, they become 'courageous' enough to be spontaneous, and therefore, free. So, there is that. But that isn't even what I meant. What I meant is, I do not believe the influential decision makers and policy makers make a great concern for applying a moral code when making geopolitical decisions. Rather, they define aims, and try to find strategies to meet those aims. Some strategies they may reject, perhaps even on moral grounds, and will then pursue some other strategy. But, when there is only ONE workable strategy, regardless of the morality of it, it will get put in place. Because the important aspect is not morality, it is positioning. Therefore, in my analysis of geopolitical happenings, I try to leave moralizing, ideology, and even my own opinion, out of it.. or at least relegate it to a side bar, or after thought. As it has no bearing on "that world" it is superfluous, and even misleading, in analyzing it. It leads to ideological propaganda, and so on. Such things make it too easy to generalize about "The Americans" or "The Russians" .. speaking of cultures, rather than the powerful few who actually do this stuff. If you think Putin spends a great deal of time thinking of "combating the evil of the West" you may want to reconsider. I would suspect that Putin spends his time analyzing how to counter the aims of rival nations. He thinks of it, just in those terms.
