NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been several people on here who I have noticed whenever someone points out some morally questionable action a coutnries government takes, then just say "thats realpolitk, got to accept it" and the simple answer is no we dont. Realpolitk may be what we expect governments to do but its not something that by that logic is made morally right. People seem to think that by something being a part of realpolitick it becomes right. It doesnt.

Well duh. Moralpolitik (is that even a word?) is "We should send money to starving people!" Realpolitik is "Why bother, they'll never get it."

There have been several people on here who I have noticed whenever someone points out some morally questionable action a coutnries government takes, then just say "thats realpolitk, got to accept it" and the simple answer is no we dont. Realpolitk may be what we expect governments to do but its not something that by that logic is made morally right. People seem to think that by something being a part of realpolitick it becomes right. It doesnt.
I don't think that's the case at all. I think what people are saying is that there's the real world we have to live in where morals don't play a very active role in political decision making, and then there's the happy, fluffy world lots of people wish we lived in. We live in a realpolitik world. Morality has nothing to do with it. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it nice. It just is.

Well, you know my views on morality, but I would agree with you in this particular case.

Governments owe it to themselves, and particularly to those who support them (like their voters) to stick to their ideals. In some cases, such ideals aren't formulated, which makes it less of a problem.

Not to forget that Bismarck's realpolitik wasn't particularly ruthless. It just referred to his usage of any political faction, even when they were completely opposed to him, to achieve goals in parliament. He was good at creating temporary alliances.

We live in a realpolitik world. Morality has nothing to do with it. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it nice. It just is.

That kind of talk is not an excuse for not following a morallity based series of government policy.

That kind of talk is not an excuse for not following a morallity based series of government policy.
Look, don't take this personally, but based on your posts in other threads, I'd rather deal with an amoral government than with one of your morality based governments.

Well, you know my views on morality, but I would agree with you in this particular case.

Governments owe it to themselves, and particularly to those who support them (like their voters) to stick to their ideals. In some cases, such ideals aren't formulated, which makes it less of a problem.

Not to forget that Bismarck's realpolitik wasn't particularly ruthless. It just referred to his usage of any political faction, even when they were completely opposed to him, to achieve goals in parliament. He was good at creating temporary alliances.
You forget that Bismarck's realpolitik also included manufacturing excuses to fight several wars against Prussia's neighbors...

Well, you know my views on morality, but I would agree with you in this particular case.

Governments owe it to themselves, and particularly to those who support them (like their voters) to stick to their ideals. In some cases, such ideals aren't formulated, which makes it less of a problem.

Not to forget that Bismarck's realpolitik wasn't particularly ruthless. It just referred to his usage of any political faction, even when they were completely opposed to him, to achieve goals in parliament. He was good at creating temporary alliances.
You forget that Bismarck's realpolitik also included manufacturing excuses to fight several wars against Prussia's neighbors...
Underlined.

You forget that Bismarck's realpolitik also included manufacturing excuses to fight several wars against Prussia's neighbors...
People often assume that, but it's not necessarily true. I've got his memoirs here with me, and in it he distances himself from every one of them. He just went with the flow and used the situations to his advantage...but as I said, the word realpolitik was made famous in a domestic context.

Underlined.
:confused: ??

People often assume that, but it's not necessarily true. I've got his memoirs here with me, and in it he distances himself from every one of them. He just went with the flow and used the situations to his advantage...but as I said, the word realpolitik was made famous in a domestic context.
Going with the flow and taking advantage of the situation no matter what is realpolitik.

And realpolitik will always be asociated with Bismarck's foreign policy. Realpolitik is famous because of the Schleswig wars, Austro Prussian war, Ems Dispatch, Franco-Prussian War, and other notable exploits by the warlord Bismarck. His domstic exploits are greatly dwarfed by his foreign adventures, and no one remembers him as a great legislator before remembering him as a great diplomat and empire builder.

And somehow I doubt Bismarck's memoirs are full of repentant and self reflective statements about his soul. Bismarck was a politician, he caused suffering in some quarters and he brought progress in other quarters, and he never lost track of his goals behind any impedances of morality. True, he had his own ideals including aristocracy, monarchism, and nationalistic pride, but these are not regarded as particularly admirable nowadays.

That kind of talk is not an excuse for not following a morallity based series of government policy.

What system of morality are you even referring to? It is not as if there is an objective, universal morality. And since most systems of morality justify themselves metaphysics or other appeals to things outside of the material world, they have no place in politics (which by its nature should focus on the real world). Moral systems based in utility certainly do have their place, and I'd like to see governments run this way, but I doubt this is what you have in mind.

There have been several people on here who I have noticed whenever someone points out some morally questionable action a coutnries government takes, then just say "thats realpolitk, got to accept it" and the simple answer is no we dont. Realpolitk may be what we expect governments to do but its not something that by that logic is made morally right. People seem to think that by something being a part of realpolitick it becomes right. It doesnt.

Please describe what you think people should do to remedy this horrific widespread acceptance of fact.

Coming to terms with the fact that governments, like the people they represent, sometimes behave like selfish schoolchildren is not complicity with those actions. Accepting a fault is the only way to start the dialog that will lead to changing it.

Saying, "That's the way it is; we should accept it," is not the same as saying, "That's the way it should be; my vote is for the status quo."

Coming to terms with the fact that governments, like the people they represent, sometimes behave like selfish schoolchildren is not complicity with those actions. Accepting a fault is the only way to start the dialog that will lead to changing it.

Saying, "That's the way it is; we should accept it," is not the same as saying, "That's the way it should be; my vote is for the status quo."

Then why not say "That's the way it is; we should change it"?

Accepting it is part of the process of changing it, but it doesn't mean that everyone who accepts it is going to work for change.

Unfortunately, we are not always in a position to change the situation.

Realpolitik is an acceptance that there is only so much that can be done at this time, and that it is better to do what you can than to expend energy trying to do the impossible. It's also an acknowledgement that sometimes there is no right answer, and that the moral way is not necessarilly the correct way.

An example is the bombing of one of the British cities during WWII (though this is, in fact, a false rumour, it illustrates my point well). According to the story, Churchill was alerted to the raid by his codebreakers days before it occurred. The moral choice would have been to evacuate, but that would have alerted the Germans that their codes were broken, endangering the upcoming Operation Overlord. The correct decision was to allow the attack to occur.

Look, don't take this personally, but based on your posts in other threads, I'd rather deal with an amoral government than with one of your morality based governments.

I hate to agree with The Nazz, but if I understand his/her use of the world "amoral", I agree with The Nazz.

From what I've read by Adriatica II, I'd rather take the dice with a purely practical regime.

Unfortunately, we are not always in a position to change the situation.

Realpolitik is an acceptance that there is only so much that can be done at this time, and that it is better to do what you can than to expend energy trying to do the impossible. It's also an acknowledgement that sometimes there is no right answer, and that the moral way is not necessarilly the correct way.

An example is the bombing of one of the British cities during WWII (though this is, in fact, a false rumour, it illustrates my point well). According to the story, Churchill was alerted to the raid by his codebreakers days before it occurred. The moral choice would have been to evacuate, but that would have alerted the Germans that their codes were broken, endangering the upcoming Operation Overlord. The correct decision was to allow the attack to occur.

You are always in a position to fight for change. It's a way of living, not something you do now and then.

Then, not believing in government makes this all so much easier for me.

You are always in a position to fight for change. It's a way of living, not something you do now and then.

Then, not believing in government makes this all so much easier for me.

I suppose you've been visited by some illusory IRS agents about this?

The thing is, everyone must play realpolitik, so to speak. There is no way that one can constantly fight against the current and win. So you use your morals as a compass when deciding what is practical, but you always keep an eye on compromise when it can improve your lot.