NationStates Jolt Archive

After seeing an abortion thread or two and intaking the news of the world in general, it struck me how often politicians, candidates, and people in general try to live or govern based on ideas. While I think it's great for people to stand by their beliefs, it does seem that if you're going to run a country, a fair amount of realism has to enter. I'm not advocating Bismarck/Nixon-style realpolitiks, but I think there is nothing too wrong with compromising beliefs, preferring real outcomes over ideal ones, or even not always being completely moral if it's better in the long run.
What do people here think? Should governments have a healthy dose of cynicism (or at least realism) when governing?

I'll add a poll, if I get around to it.

I like the idea of governing/thinking in an idealogical way kept constantly in check by a good dose of cynicism. At least, that's how I live.

I think that you're saying is that being good is not being practical.

In which case you might want to question that sentence: Is your standard of good reasonable? What makes it impractical? Who's not behaving in a good way, and why do you think a compromise between good and evil will do anything but harm the good and help the evil?

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, but I am saying that your question implies a world where something is very definitely out of kilter.

I think that you're saying is that being good is not being practical.

In which case you might want to question that sentence: Is your standard of good reasonable? What makes it impractical? Who's not behaving in a good way, and why do you think a compromise between good and evil will do anything but harm the good and help the evil?

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, but I am saying that your question implies a world where something is very definitely out of kilter.

I'll give an example: I am a staunchly opposed to genocide. The planned extermination of a race seems wrong, and I'm sure most people here agree. However, I personally do not try to directly try to stop genocides; I doubt the Sudanese government would listen to me anyway. Likewise, I don't think the United States or any country should be expected to intervene every time some nut case gets a junta together.

Another example: There are plenty of things which I believe are wrong, such as abortion, smoking, driving Hummers, and many more. But I don't believe the government should make these illegal, because illegal tobacco, abortions, and Hummers would be even worse than legal ones.

There are somethings I think a country should never do, such as genocide. No amount of Kissenger diplomacy can justify that. However, there are many things which are in a gray area, and while I wouldn't advocate the government doing something immoral, I can see times when it would be useful to admit it is powerless to stop something, and make the best of a bad situation.

After seeing an abortion thread or two and intaking the news of the world in general, it struck me how often politicians, candidates, and people in general try to live or govern based on ideas. While I think it's great for people to stand by their beliefs, it does seem that if you're going to run a country, a fair amount of realism has to enter. I'm not advocating Bismarck/Nixon-style realpolitiks, but I think there is nothing too wrong with compromising beliefs, preferring real outcomes over ideal ones, or even not always being completely moral if it's better in the long run.
What do people here think? Should governments have a healthy dose of cynicism (or at least realism) when governing?

I'll add a poll, if I get around to it.
I think that realism is certainly worth having, but I don't think we should compromise beliefs and standards. For instance, no matter the situation I would NEVER authorize torture. Nor would I authorize other disgusting measures. (One suggestion for a possible future military standard battle operation against Muslims was supposed to be called Sanction Five. It would be to torture the man, sew him up in a PIG'S CARCASS AND THEN SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD. This is, in short, so ridiculously stupid and cruel and insulting that it's liable to get every single moderate Muslim who is wavering on whether or not to support the extremists to support them and would extend any war against radical Islam and extremism for decades.)

What does realism have to do with being evil? Torturing people is also idealistic. If you think the world is somehow a better place because your enemy's are suffering or dead, you're deluding yourself.

Realists never have to talk about morals because they don't have to defend policy's that obviously never work. Idealists keep doing things that don't work because they believe that it should work. Everyone knows that abstinence only sex ed doesn't convince anybody to remain abstinent, but they keep trying to teach that way because they think it SHOULD work. But just because realists don't talk about morals, it doesn't mean they don't have them.

I'm a big fan of realism.

Clodfelter and New Limacon

At last!!! Someone that agrees with my point of view!!!

I entirely agree with you guys! In fact, I go further and do believe that Bismarck-Nixon style politics are what governments are really supposed to do.

As far as NS is concerned, its a pitty that we don't have a Realist community, smth like "The Pragmatic Entente".

When I'm faced with moral issues on the daily legislation, I simply dismiss them and refuse to legislate on them.

How about you guys?

I think that you're saying is that being good is not being practical.

In which case you might want to question that sentence: Is your standard of good reasonable? What makes it impractical? Who's not behaving in a good way, and why do you think a compromise between good and evil will do anything but harm the good and help the evil?

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, but I am saying that your question implies a world where something is very definitely out of kilter.
In my experience, people who see a conflict between the "good" and the "practical" are in fact simply saying that there are two different kinds of "good" in the world - one being the "idealistic good" and other other being the "practical good" - which may sometimes conflict.

I, for one, recognize no other good but the "practical good." The moral value of an action is to be judged by its consequences and its consequences alone. A "good" action that leads to a bad result is in fact a bad action.

In my experience, people who see a conflict between the "good" and the "practical" are in fact simply saying that there are two different kinds of "good" in the world - one being the "idealistic good" and other other being the "practical good" - which may sometimes conflict.

I, for one, recognize no other good but the "practical good." The moral value of an action is to be judged by its consequences and its consequences alone. A "good" action that leads to a bad result is in fact a bad action.
In normal human interaction, I don't always agree with that. But in decisions that are nation-wide or between countries, an utilitarian basis is definitely better than an idealist one.

After seeing an abortion thread or two and intaking the news of the world in general, it struck me how often politicians, candidates, and people in general try to live or govern based on ideas. While I think it's great for people to stand by their beliefs, it does seem that if you're going to run a country, a fair amount of realism has to enter. I'm not advocating Bismarck/Nixon-style realpolitiks, but I think there is nothing too wrong with compromising beliefs, preferring real outcomes over ideal ones, or even not always being completely moral if it's better in the long run.
What do people here think? Should governments have a healthy dose of cynicism (or at least realism) when governing?

I'll add a poll, if I get around to it.

I am a firm believer in Machiavelli. Morality is completely relative. Idealism is nice for debate, but has no-place in government. I actually think Nixon was a decent president. Oh, sure he wasn't all-that moral. But we're not electing the Pope, after all (actually, Alexander the VI is my favorite Pope.) Bismarck wanted to abolish minimum wage, ergo he's a dunder-head.

I think that you're saying is that being good is not being practical.

In which case you might want to question that sentence: Is your standard of good reasonable? What makes it impractical? Who's not behaving in a good way, and why do you think a compromise between good and evil will do anything but harm the good and help the evil?

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, but I am saying that your question implies a world where something is very definitely out of kilter.

My theory: good and evil are a matter of a point-of-view. I propose a government based entirely-off logic.

I'll give an example: I am a staunchly opposed to genocide. The planned extermination of a race seems wrong, and I'm sure most people here agree. However, I personally do not try to directly try to stop genocides; I doubt the Sudanese government would listen to me anyway. Likewise, I don't think the United States or any country should be expected to intervene every time some nut case gets a junta together.

Another example: There are plenty of things which I believe are wrong, such as abortion, smoking, driving Hummers, and many more. But I don't believe the government should make these illegal, because illegal tobacco, abortions, and Hummers would be even worse than legal ones.

There are somethings I think a country should never do, such as genocide. No amount of Kissenger diplomacy can justify that. However, there are many things which are in a gray area, and while I wouldn't advocate the government doing something immoral, I can see times when it would be useful to admit it is powerless to stop something, and make the best of a bad situation.

Genocide would be silly purely for the reason it makes no-sense.

Genocide would be silly purely for the reason it makes no-sense.

Not necessarily. Genocide can ironically bring people together, especially if every gets involved (such as the genocide in Rwanda). It also moves the attention away from the incompetent government and toward a weaker scapegoat.

My theory: good and evil are a matter of a point-of-view. I propose a government based entirely-off logic.
And judgements of policies on good and evil can't be arrived at through logic, based on some super-simple standard?

I think that realism is certainly worth having, but I don't think we should compromise beliefs and standards. For instance, no matter the situation I would NEVER authorize torture. Nor would I authorize other disgusting measures. (One suggestion for a possible future military standard battle operation against Muslims was supposed to be called Sanction Five. It would be to torture the man, sew him up in a PIG'S CARCASS AND THEN SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD. This is, in short, so ridiculously stupid and cruel and insulting that it's liable to get every single moderate Muslim who is wavering on whether or not to support the extremists to support them and would extend any war against radical Islam and extremism for decades.)

Torture rarely makes a good deterrent. It would make sense to threaten a terrorist whit a pool of dog-slobber though, but only if information was required. After he provides this information, shoot him.

P.S. Sorry about all the posts. It's just this happens to be my all-time favorite topic.

Not necessarily. Genocide can ironically bring people together, especially if every gets involved (such as the genocide in Rwanda). It also moves the attention away from the incompetent government and toward a weaker scapegoat.

An incompetent government is inefficient. Attention should be brought to it, so change is possible

And judgements of policies on good and evil can't be arrived at through logic, based on some super-simple standard?

Good and evil are man-made ideas. Logic was created by nature.

My theory: good and evil are a matter of a point-of-view. I propose a government based entirely-off logic.
I disagree. While there is an awful lot of gray, there are still extremes at either end. Government should be logical, but it should use the logic to further good, whatever that may be. Something similar to this (http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/bentham/ipml/ipml.c04.html#n01ret)would be useful.
An incompetent government is inefficient. Attention should be brought to it, so change is possible
Depends on what the goal of the government is. If the goal is to keep the rulers in power, than genocide is very effective. If it is to serve the people, you're right.

Logic was created by nature.
Logic is a human construct used to describe a process of thought. Nature has no sentience (to our knowledge, and if sentience of nature exists it is impossible to determine using, Logic, funnily enough), no thought, and thus cannot come up with an abstract concept.

Idealistic realism... a set of pragmatic ideals. A system in which everyone achieves the best results and has what is best for them, and is accomplished without harming others.

Hopeless, I know.

Dammit.
I want to change my vote from what is essentially 'idealism go' to 'sometimes'.

I disagree. While there is an awful lot of gray, there are still extremes at either end. Government should be logical, but it should use the logic to further good, whatever that may be. Something similar to this (http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/bentham/ipml/ipml.c04.html#n01ret)would be useful.

Depends on what the goal of the government is. If the goal is to keep the rulers in power, than genocide is very effective. If it is to serve the people, you're right.

I think what you are talking about New Limacon, has been more easily described in the scripts atributed to Hanfeizi. He spoke very clearly - and obviously earlier as well - of the need to use the "two handles" reward and punishment...

What do people here think? Should governments have a healthy dose of cynicism (or at least realism) when governing?I think your post reads like a complaint that everyone doesn't agree with you. But I'll assume I've misunderstood something.

As for governing, I'd like to see governing take the form of a management/consulting body. But then, I don't believe in liberal demockery. I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me whether or not I can have an abortion (hypothetically speaking), smoke a joint, buy a beer on Sunday or whatever else silly shit governments habitually do.

A governing body ought to exist to advise us on how to best achieve our goals. If a number of us, for example, wants those abortions, or joints or whatever, it should asses the optimal way(s) for us to do so.

Say I ran a grocer and got in touch with a management company to get an assessment of how to be a better grocer. If the management company was my government, it would probably sell my shop, take half the profits, and order me to spend the other half learning how to become a drywaller. If it was an ordinary management company, it'd simply advise me on how to maximise my profits, and I'd be ever so free to ignore the advice as I saw fit.

Allegedly my government works for my peers and I, and that, allegedly, is why we don't dismantle it. Only, I have a very damn hard time to find any support for those allegations.

Social democrats, neo liberals, conservatives, christian democrats.. It's all the same shit, really. Only difference is the length of the leash & colour of the collar they wanna put on us all. On a good day, I'd call 'em all a waste of time. On a bad day, I'd say they belong in prison along with the rest of the idiots that think they have a right to the autonomy of their peers.

I wonder why people assume that realism is logical, especially in a political context. Every day, I see people acting in an illogical manner when dealing with each other. Since politics is the art of organising other people, anyone involved in politics has to deal with all this irrationality. It would be decidedly unrealistic to assume that it always best to deal with this is through logical means.

It doesn't need to be either-or, you know. Might I propose a two-house solution, where one house is elected according to ideological classification while another according to profession and field of specialisation? That way, one house presents practicalities of what a nation can do while the other checks these according to the collective ideals of its people.

(By the way, hey all. Nice to be back. ^^ )

Good and evil are man-made ideas. Logic was created by nature.

Huh? How was logic created by nature?

My theory: good and evil are a matter of a point-of-view. I propose a government based entirely-off logic.

impossible. logic alone cannot tell you what you should do, and therefore cannot form the fundamental basis of policy.

impossible. logic alone cannot tell you what you should do, and therefore cannot form the fundamental basis of policy.

Yep I agree.

Look at humanity, just watch how you deal with people on a personal level. Not everything is done on a logical basis, and although I agree we should try to be 'reasonable' not everything is, or should be reasoned out.

We should always take account of what needs done, and if it is unavoidable, we should do it and have our recriminations afterwards. But we must never forget our beliefs, values and ideals. If we insist on running against our values, eventually the contradictions will destroy us.

Agreement once again. Logic cannot be the only basis for decisions. Moral values play a significant part as well.

For example, if half the world is starving, it is logical to kill off some the population in order for the rest to have sufficient food to fulfill dietary needs, rather than spend the money required to meet the new needs. However, it remains immoral despite its logic. (If morals are added to this equation of world hunger, for example, it becomes illogical to kill off a significant portion of the population due to the violation of the morals of most people, because they will try to stop you/ kill you to save the rest.) Therefore, everyone, even nihilists to some degree, have a moral side to decision making that complements logical and rational thought. With morality (and the uncertain nature that comes with it) in the mix with logic, differing moralities compromise pure logic and instead cause logic to conform to the moral values of the logician (for lack of a better word). This is why when logic is applied to varying circumstances and situations, various people come to differing conclusions. Thus, decisions are made with the following constraints on logic:

1. Ethics and Morals
2. Available Information
3. Emotional State
4. Logical Understanding
5. Personal Experience, Opinions, and State

Along with morals, if you apply logic to faulty, different, or insufficient information the decision will come out compromised. Logic is also affected by the emotional state of the person applying logic, as logical ability tends to degrade once emotionally disturbed. The understanding of logic also affects logical output as if you apply a process not compliant with rational logic, it is rare to get the same result. Experience, opinions, and state of living influence logic naturally enough as they affect the thoughts of everyone, including one applying logic.

I think what you are talking about New Limacon, has been more easily described in the scripts atributed to Hanfeizi. He spoke very clearly - and obviously earlier as well - of the need to use the "two handles" reward and punishment...

I am ashamed to admit I spent a good five seconds searching for Hanfeizi's post before I caught on.

I wonder why people assume that realism is logical, especially in a political context. Every day, I see people acting in an illogical manner when dealing with each other. Since politics is the art of organising other people, anyone involved in politics has to deal with all this irrationality. It would be decidedly unrealistic to assume that it always best to deal with this is through logical means.

Realism is no more logical than reality, but the stereotypical realist is a cold, calculating Dr. Strangelove while the stereotypical idealist is a feelings-based hippie. You're right, though, a truly realist policy would consider all of reality, even the parts that don't make much sense.

People!!!

No one said that logic is an absolute to implement blindly!

But it is yes, a minimum common denominator towards relating to another person/state.

The problem with idealists is that they don't want to admit that values are secondary when dealing with those that differ from them.

Take the Israel lobby issue, for example.

Of course that on purely objective and statistic terms, an alliance with Egypt is much more profitable to the US than one with Israel.
But one has to consider the damage to the image and political coherence - as well as cohesion - of the USA if a liberal-democratic-oppressed-religious- minority-immigrant-based state like Israel was crushed by an authoritarian-native-oppressive-religious-majority like Egypt...

-----------------------------

New Limacon, I'm not sure if I understood you, but you do realise that Hanfeizi is a philosopher, not a player ...