Is Nation-State a Moral Entity?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

How does the average citizen develop a rational structure for deciding proper behavior between nations?

A fundamental issue has been raised regarding what is an acceptable criterion for one nation making war upon another. The invasion of Iraq by the US is the event that leads to this question.

If my neighbor behaves in a manner that I decide to be threatening what am I, as a law-abiding citizen allowed doing? To my knowledge my only recourse is to report the situation to the police. To my knowledge the police might visit my neighbor and talk with him about the matter but the bottom line is that neither the police nor I can take any more drastic action. Neither the law nor I can harm my neighbor in this matter until the neighbor initiates an obvious action to harm me.

Why isn’t ethical behavior in domestic matters a guide for ethical matters in international matters? Does morality stop at the water’s edge?

It appears to me that in the matter of the US invading Iraq the US is certainly at fault if we use domestic law as a suitable model for international law. It appears to me, based upon my limited knowledge, that in fact, “international law” prohibits the action like the US invasion of Iraq.

Can we use domestic law as a standard for judging the proper behavior of nations with each other? Is there some kind of “common sense” equivalency between domestic law and international behavior? When my nation, in an act of war, kills a citizen of another nation how can I make a rational judgement about such matters?

In the early days in the development of the US there was no dependable law enforcement and people “took the law into their own hands”. Is that the situation that exists internationally today? Thus we can say that the US is not only justified in taking any action we see fit we are obligated to “shot first and ask questions later”.

Is Saddam required to prove his innocence or is The United States required to prove his guilt in establishing the legitimacy of the Iraq War? In domestic matters the accused is assumed innocent and must be proven guilty. In International matters it is contended that the reverse is true. Saddam is responsible for proving innocence and the US is not responsible for proving his guilt.

2

Personally, I feel you’re confusing the ideas of ‘morality’ and ‘justice’. Our moral obligations to one another (which is a totally seperate can of worms) are quite different from the proper conduct of the state. Nozick (in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia) makes a great argument of this, so go read him, but in the meantime i’ll give you my take, which is decidably less libertarian.

It seems to me that if our moral obligations are correctly assured even at the most basic level (giving everyone basic rights and such) then the proper conduct of the state, that is, justice, becomes a simple enforement of one’s obligations. Regardless of the law, I think we can all agree I am morally obligated not to go kill him, slit him open, and urinate on his intestines. However, if he was kicking my dog, one could say i have the right or obligation to prevent or stop that (to what extent, is, of course, open to debate). However, the just thing for the state to do is to ensure my rights (which can be seen as other people’s moral obligations to me being fufilled) are secure, but not to define those rights. It is not just for the state of define rights, but it is moral for those who make up the state, it’s people, to do so.

The key here is you’re skipping over an important step. you’re going straight to enforcement, the law, and confusing it with our obligations. Morality, after all, is not about the law–though it’s implementation is–which is where global ethics and justice comes in. See, it’s easy to just think of justice and morality as seperate when one is talking about a single state, but our moral obligations easily can take a global scale, and then the two concepts merge.

Therefore the US, under this theory, did not need to use some sort of international law concept to justify their invasion. It (or rather, they, but it’s simpler to think of a state as one entity in some cases) could simply argue that they are enforce basic morality, rights. It is not a moral action, it is a just one, therefore it is merely ensuring the smooth running of morality.

I got a little sidetracked, but i hope this answers some questions.

3

The problem is that the US government have not only ‘knocked on the neighbours door to talk’ but to also change their way of life. The US are presupposing that there exists a standard ethical way of life for all nations at all times. This is is the tip of of the iceberg.

Or at least it ought to stop at the ‘waters edge’.

You are asking why it would be illegal for a neighbour to interfere between a couple in a domestic encounter but not for a Nation-State to interfere in another Nation-States policy?

I must ask you though, although the law prohibits one from coming between a domestic fight, do you suppose that it would be immoral if one did come between a domestic fight that was reaching its peak?

They actually have a term for this type of interference, and they call it Terrorism.

Or we could show that it would be unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism, that ethics and morals are relative to each Nation or even culture and that there is no standard ethical/moral policy that all nation-states ought to abide by.

Or we could take the British PM’s recent quote on Terrorism to determine what made the terrorist attacks on England so unethical.

"When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated… we will not be changed. When they try to divide our people our weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm. We will show by our spirit and dignity… our values will long outlast theirs."
Tony Blair

Source: brainyquote.com/quotes/autho … blair.html

So when they attempt to weaken the British State or divide its nation then the State calls them Terrorists so according to the structure of reasoning used here by Blair, he himself should be claiming that the US be accused of terrorism. He seems to be lacking in coherent reasoning.

Correct me if i’m wrong please but i thought it must be proven that Saddam committed crimes against humanity?

Sisyphus0

4

Gassing 30,000 Kurds not good enough for you?

5

He is being tried for the killing of 143 Shiites, but proof must be shown.

He is not being tried for any of the other crimes since they would be near enough impossible to prove.

Sisyphus0

6

Cran

We appear to differ somewhat on this issue.

I am inclined to say that justice is a subcategory of morality just as chair is a subcategory of furniture. Morality is a general belief that we as humans are required to treat fellow humans in a manner that often requires us to ignore self-interest in favor of an obligation to another person. Justice is generally thought to be a group form of morality. Some people consider justice to be fair treatment by government of the people and of people toward one another.

In the US we have a constitution that defines our rights and the government is obliged to enforce this dictate. The government ensures rights and the citizens are free to determine what is good because we all may have differing ideas of the good. The government makes laws that define clearly the limits of citizen action regarding the rights of fellow citizens.

7

Sys…

When I brought up the neighbor matter I was thinking of the case where I feel certain that my neighbor plans to do violence toward me and may even plan to kill me. In our legal system I cannot take action of violence against him nevertheless nor can the police take action until the neighbor actually moves with his intention.

In domestic law a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Now if such a situation were the same in International matters the US would be required to prove Saddam was guilty of having an atomic weapon and was preparing to use it against us immediately since that was the case for invading Iraq.

8

Actually Coberst, I am in general agreement with your definition of justice as ‘group morality’. However I disagree that justice and morality can be applied to the same situations. The functions of the state, justice, is the upholding the preconcieved notions of morality. The law itself isn’t an issue of justice in my opinion, it’s enforcement is. The particulars of the law (international or domestic) are a moral issue, up to the citizens (or their representatives, whether elected officials or totalitarian leaders) to decide.

Thus one could say that the US was acting morally in attempting to topple Saddam, who most feel is guilty of causing much suffering, but it was done in a very unjust manner, one which violated the proper enforcement of international law. There are some who say they would’ve supported the war in Iraq if the proper steps (UN procedure and such) had been followed, that is, morality and justice.

The argument for ethical relativism is a good point, but I think it falls short here. It’s a great argument to use when talking about things such as hijabs, but I doubt it’s a normal cultural convention in Iraq to support and feel positive about your leader opressing and killing you.

9

Sure I agree that the Iraqi nation may not actually be in favour of the State regime but this does not give any other State authority to dive straight in and revolutionize their State ethics. The point here is to highlight what the standard of ethics is and whether it should be applied to all States at all times? (This is of course assuming that such standards even exist). If these ethics exist then would it be acceptable for other States to interfere with the British/US State in order to impose this standard ethical conduct?

Sisyphus0

10

Cran…

If a chair is a member of the furniture family then it follows that justice is a member of the morality family.

Our constitution defines the rights of the citizen. Our government is responsible for protecting those rights. The government makes laws defining what protection of rights means legally. The laws government enacts are not moral codes but are legal codes.

The code of laws is for domestic matters primarily. Some laws are to serve foreign policy matters. These laws have a moral component due to what that government through the citizens reckons to be moral obligations.