Where is the morality?

[Mock Turtle]

In nations effectively taking on the role of world leader and decision maker when any actions might have devastating consequences for the whole world and might even threaten our very existence?

Thinking about the MAD (Mutually assured destruction) doctrine here, which was US policy for a long period during the Cold War, and where a major response to any attack could have seen the use of most or all of the nuclear weapons held at that time. The two powers then were de facto leaders of opposing political ideologies, but who gave either side the right to progress any action that might have endangered the lives of so many others all around the world and who often had no stake in such confrontations? Is this just diabolical that any nation would assume such a role, and possibly just coming from the development of such powerful weapons?

A similar position is developing with regards off-Earth resources (mining other planets, moons, and other space objects), where Trump has apparently gone for purely US interests in developing such, and hence perhaps starting a new Space Wars race, when we might have gone the international cooperation approach instead.

 

[PureX]

Power tends to erase ethics.

The ability to do something and the advantage that comes from having that ability will override the ethical wisdom of doing it, or of taking advantage of one's ability to do it, nearly every time. Because for we humans, 'truth' is determined by physical functionality, not by ethical imperative. And this fact of our nature will probably be the cause of our own self-destruction, in the end.

 

[Sunstone]

Moral rights and responsibilities tend to influence decisions, rather than to determine them.

People who have never led organizations of any size quite often harbor simplistic notions of the decision-making processes in even the smallest organizations, let alone such huge entities as nations. For one thing, they usually grossly underestimate both the number and kinds of factors that are often involved. And sometimes, they tend to frame the issues in black and white terms. All of those things and more contribute to their not grasping what's really going on when a decision, such as to rely on MAD, is made.

Having said all of that, the OP makes a huge point. What moral right did the US and USSR have to threaten the destruction of all or most human life on the planet? None, in my opinion.

And what moral right today does anyone have to accelerate global climate change? Again, none.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Moral rights and responsibilities tend to influence decisions, rather than to determine them.

But it's a bit pointless debating morality and ethics when a few people in power might have the means of destroying all or most of life on Earth, or at least having a devastating effect on such. Isn't it time we made such accountable to all the rest of us - and the same goes for the space exploration point - who gives them the rights? I know what the dynamics are but is no one (historically it seems) concerned with the principles involved here?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But it's a bit pointless debating morality and ethics when a few people in power might have the means of destroying all or most of life on Earth, or at least having a devastating effect on such. Isn't it time we made such accountable to all the rest of us - and the same goes for the space exploration point - who gives them the rights? I know what the dynamics are but is no one (historically it seems) concerned with the principles involved here?

Concerned?
I would imagine a lot of people were concerned. I know the reactions of most around me when Trump made announcements about mining on the moon.
But ultimately, my government has very little ability to even have a meaningful conversation with the US on this, even if they wanted to. So there is a very real sense of fait accompli associated with these sort of proposed actions by the US.

Is there some sort of action you are proposing? I fully agree with your sentiments, but you seem to be conflating action with thought.

 

[Secret Chief]

Moral rights and responsibilities tend to influence decisions, rather than to determine them.

People who have never led organizations of any size quite often harbor simplistic notions of the decision-making processes in even the smallest organizations, let alone such huge entities as nations. For one thing, they usually grossly underestimate both the number and kinds of factors that are often involved. And sometimes, they tend to frame the issues in black and white terms. All of those things and more contribute to their not grasping what's really going on when a decision, such as to rely on MAD, is made.

Having said all of that, the OP makes a huge point. What moral right did the US and USSR have to threaten the destruction of all or most human life on the planet? None, in my opinion.

And what moral right today does anyone have to accelerate global climate change? Again, none.

You'll be saying scapegoating is wrong next.

 

[Sunstone]

I know what the dynamics are but is no one (historically it seems) concerned with the principles involved here?

Most "decision-makers" that I have known take into account ethical considerations to some degree or another. (Notable exceptions have been a handful of psychopaths, narcissists, etc. that I have known.) But I have not known anyone to rely exclusively on ethics for their decisions. By the term "decision-maker" I mean the leaders and key players of organizations, both great and small.

Ethical considerations usually influence decision-making this way: They don't have that much impact on whether or not something is done, compared to the impact they have on how it is done.

 

[joe1776]

Power tends to erase ethics.

We disagree on this. IMO, power itself is amoral. It can be used to create or destroy.

As I see it, the problem is that the people with the ambition for power over others are typically corrupted by arrogance. They need to prove themselves and their groups superior to others. We call these people leaders.

 

[icehorse]

Well in theory, democracy is supposed to provide a sort of "wisdom of the crowds" set of morals and ethics, I think that that would tend to create good results.

But in practice - at least in much of the "democratic world", we've let oligarchs and plutocrats take over our democracies, and those folks - as a rule - are immoral and unethical.

 

[PureX]

We disagree on this. IMO, power itself is amoral. It can be used to create or destroy.

As I see it, the problem is that the people with the ambition for power over others are typically corrupted by arrogance. They need to prove themselves and their groups superior to others. We call these people leaders.

But power represents truth, for a great many humans. "Might makes right", so to speak. And that's especially true when it comes to the power of functionality, or of functional knowledge. If one is functionally ABLE to take advantage of another, for example, it is expected that one would, and even should. It is viewed as a natural right. If I know how the used car market functions, and you do not, it is my right, and the common expectation that I would use my functional knowledge to take advantage of you, and to take as much money from you as I can when selling you a used car. We consider this having a "good business sense". It never really even enters our mind that what we are doing might not be ethical. It being POSSIBLE is far more important to us than it being ETHICAL. Because if it's possible, and WE DON'T DO IT, we assume that SOMEONE ELSE WILL, and worse, they will do it to us.

 

[Super Universe]

In nations effectively taking on the role of world leader and decision maker when any actions might have devastating consequences for the whole world and might even threaten our very existence?

Thinking about the MAD (Mutually assured destruction) doctrine here, which was US policy for a long period during the Cold War, and where a major response to any attack could have seen the use of most or all of the nuclear weapons held at that time. The two powers then were de facto leaders of opposing political ideologies, but who gave either side the right to progress any action that might have endangered the lives of so many others all around the world and who often had no stake in such confrontations? Is this just diabolical that any nation would assume such a role, and possibly just coming from the development of such powerful weapons?

A similar position is developing with regards off-Earth resources (mining other planets, moons, and other space objects), where Trump has apparently gone for purely US interests in developing such, and hence perhaps starting a new Space Wars race, when we might have gone the international cooperation approach instead.

Your international cooperation approach would give China unearned knowledge when they are already stealing secrets and pirating western inventions and western ideas. And China already has a Chinese Lunar Exploration Program since 2007, so, they didn't exactly look for western cooperation, not that they would have got it anyway.

We are internationally cooperating in space. Russia is launching modules for the International Space Station and people from 19 countries have been to the ISS.

The moon is first come, first served, but it's the moon. Getting resources from the moon would come at a great cost compared to just getting that resource on the earth. There really isn't anything on the moon that is important or desirable, other than maybe Helium-3 for a futuristic reactor but it's not a need yet.

 

[McBell]

In nations effectively taking on the role of world leader and decision maker when any actions might have devastating consequences for the whole world and might even threaten our very existence?

Thinking about the MAD (Mutually assured destruction) doctrine here, which was US policy for a long period during the Cold War, and where a major response to any attack could have seen the use of most or all of the nuclear weapons held at that time. The two powers then were de facto leaders of opposing political ideologies, but who gave either side the right to progress any action that might have endangered the lives of so many others all around the world and who often had no stake in such confrontations? Is this just diabolical that any nation would assume such a role, and possibly just coming from the development of such powerful weapons?

A similar position is developing with regards off-Earth resources (mining other planets, moons, and other space objects), where Trump has apparently gone for purely US interests in developing such, and hence perhaps starting a new Space Wars race, when we might have gone the international cooperation approach instead.

Seems to me it is double standard.
On BOTH sides of the board.

Do you believe that the rich should use their money to help the poor?
If you do, then why doesn't the same "take control" attitude apply to world leadership?

Though to be honest, I suspect the whole world leadership is more about ego than a desire to help.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Concerned?
I would imagine a lot of people were concerned. I know the reactions of most around me when Trump made announcements about mining on the moon.
But ultimately, my government has very little ability to even have a meaningful conversation with the US on this, even if they wanted to. So there is a very real sense of fait accompli associated with these sort of proposed actions by the US.

Is there some sort of action you are proposing? I fully agree with your sentiments, but you seem to be conflating action with thought.

Well it was more about the fact that we might have learnt how senseless the MAD doctrine was (truly well named) looking back, and although I can remember all the anti-nuclear protests whilst it was in force, I can't remember much being said about the ethics or morality of such a doctrine. Of course I might have just missed this (or forgotten), but I would hope that if we did get into such a position again - it's entirely possible - then there would be more of an outcry from all those nations not directly involved, when it is just immoral to create such a threat. I don't think CND played a great role in the fall of the Soviet Union or in reducing the number of nuclear weapons so I doubt public action would have any effects.

As pointed out, the same goes for space exploration, where one or more nations take it upon themselves to make the laws that suit themselves.

I don't know what the answer is to all this, possibly there not being one, although the unsavory solution to some might be some form of world government having a say in such matters. But that's about as unlikely as any nation ceasing their posturing and threats.

Just wondering how others saw all this.

 

[joe1776]

But power represents truth, for a great many humans. "Might makes right", so to speak. And that's especially true when it comes to the power of functionality, or of functional knowledge. If one is functionally ABLE to take advantage of another, for example, it is expected that one would, and even should. It is viewed as a natural right. If I know how the used car market functions, and you do not, it is my right, and the common expectation that I would use my functional knowledge to take advantage of you, and to take as much money from you as I can when selling you a used car. We consider this having a "good business sense". It never really even enters our mind that what we are doing might not be ethical. It being POSSIBLE is far more important to us than it being ETHICAL. Because if it's possible, and WE DON'T DO IT, we assume that SOMEONE ELSE WILL, and worse, they will do it to us.

I put your words" It is viewed as a natural right" in bold font

What you have clearly described is the sense of entitlement that always accompanies arrogance. As an extreme example, Hitler appealed to the most arrogant of his followers by telling them that, as a Master Race, they had the natural right to take the land they needed by force from their neighbors to the East.

When you wrote earlier that "Power tends to erase ethics," I read that as a statement making power the cause of the problem in the same way that Lord Acton famously said that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I think Lord Acton was wrong.

I think power as a tool in the hands of leaders corrupted by arrogance at birth is the world's problem. But power itself can be a tool used to create a better world.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Seems to me it is double standard.
On BOTH sides of the board.

Do you believe that the rich should use their money to help the poor?
If you do, then why doesn't the same "take control" attitude apply to world leadership?

Though to be honest, I suspect the whole world leadership is more about ego than a desire to help.

I suspect in more enlightened times, if we actually ever get to such, those in the future might ask how on earth did any one nation take it upon themselves to act unilaterally in any endeavour (like defence or off-Earth adventures) particularly if any of these threatened the very survival of all on Earth. Perhaps we will just get more cooperative in future decades but the omens aren't good.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Your international cooperation approach would give China unearned knowledge when they are already stealing secrets and pirating western inventions and western ideas. And China already has a Chinese Lunar Exploration Program since 2007, so, they didn't exactly look for western cooperation, not that they would have got it anyway.

We are internationally cooperating in space. Russia is launching modules for the International Space Station and people from 19 countries have been to the ISS.

The moon is first come, first served, but it's the moon. Getting resources from the moon would come at a great cost compared to just getting that resource on the earth. There really isn't anything on the moon that is important or desirable, other than maybe Helium-3 for a futuristic reactor but it's not a need yet.

Well most nations have done a bit of stealing in their time (and a lot worse) so I wouldn't be too hard on China for this. It's true that we do have some cooperation in space but the latest move by Trump seems to set us on a possible course for future conflict off-Earth.

 

[McBell]

I suspect in more enlightened times, if we actually ever get to such, those in the future might ask how on earth did any one nation take it upon themselves to act unilaterally in any endeavour (like defence or off-Earth adventures) particularly if any of these threatened the very survival of all on Earth. Perhaps we will just get more cooperative in future decades but the omens aren't good.

I would like to think it possible.
Though I seriously doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

 

[Super Universe]

Well most nations have done a bit of stealing in their time (and a lot worse) so I wouldn't be too hard on China for this. It's true that we do have some cooperation in space but the latest move by Trump seems to set us on a possible course for future conflict off-Earth.

You wouldn't be too hard on China for stealing secrets? Why can't they put in the time and effort to learn things themselves?

The Chinese closed their society for thousands of years and the Japanese came in and swept through their country. We gave the Chinese weapons to fight the Japanese and then we defeated the Japanese and now the Chinese are stealing our submarine designs and copying the US stealth fighter and US destroyer designs.

We went to the moon first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, before the Chinese and now, somehow, WE are the ones looking for trouble on the moon?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You wouldn't be too hard on China for stealing secrets? Why can't they put in the time and effort to learn things themselves?

The Chinese closed their society for thousands of years and the Japanese came in and swept through their country. We gave the Chinese weapons to fight the Japanese and then we defeated the Japanese and now the Chinese are stealing our submarine designs and copying the US stealth fighter and US destroyer designs.

We went to the moon first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, before the Chinese and now, somehow, WE are the ones looking for trouble on the moon?

You were first there so it's yours?

 

[Super Universe]

You were first there so it's yours?

The argument was that we were immoral because we are now going back to the moon, as if the Chinese suddenly had the only right to it.

The moon is open territory. Whoever gets there, gets there.

But, honestly, to me it's like arguing over a really expensive dead chicken.