We had no obligation to intervene in Rwanda; convince me otherwise

[Scythe404]

Please note that the following is an argument born of cold rationality, inspired by a philosophical discussion about a friend's essay that he wrote for a political philosophy class. The following is an argument, not necessarily my exact opinion:

My argument is that there is only one clear, definable truth that exists: power. Moral concepts such as universal equality or basic rights (and moral concepts in general) are little more than pragmatic responses to the horrors of major events around the world, born out of specific cultures and circumstances. They are always relative and always designed to be preventative, emerging following the horror which brings about their existence in the public consciousness; the Holocaust, 9/11 and so on and so forth.

What my friend pointed out was that ideas such as universal equality and basic rights as outlined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights were devised merely out of fear of and to prevent the resurgence of genocidal, fascist movements in the wake of WWII. And therein lies the paradox of such 'rights:' the 'equal, just' world portrayed as the goal to which the global community should work comes from nothing more than the selfish interests of a select group of powerful nations protecting their interests.

The truth is that there is no objective, universal value in humanity, and to believe in the contrary is to merely give in to the 'acceptable political truth.' We can't really believe otherwise, because it would be far too pessimistic. But one only needs to dig through history to understand that it is closer to the truth; America, which was founded on the phrase "all men are created equal," allowed established slavery to fuel its economy for nearly a century, and began its existence by only allowing its upper economic classes the right to vote. Today, racial profiling runs rampant in response to the most recent horror America experienced.

Morals are relative. Power is not. You either have control and influence, or you do not. The truth is that each nation and the government atop it is primarily concerned with its own interests, just as the ruling class of Americans were then and world governments and wealthy and influential are now. The most prosperous nations on this planet have the longest track records of barbarism and moral hypocrisy, and that is no coincidence; they have built societies of wealth and comfort which we now lovingly enjoy, and they have done so purely through supporting themselves and showing complete moral indifference to whatever has stood in their way.

The truth is that we owe our comfort to the dead; the Rwandans, the Sudanese and the Kurds. They starve because the powers above us have worked to consolidate bounty for us and have ignored them. The West is on top because they have been left to rot on the bottom.

So why should we have gone to Rwanda? What is our interest in helping the millions being slaughtered in Darfur? Why did we need to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein? That last action has cost our economy trillions; a prime example of the price of the attempt at greater international philanthrophy. All the moral reasons one could argue against this point of view with are purely relative, created for our own benefit and from our own cultural perspective. If you intend to argue for this universal philanthropy, first think long and hard about how strong your personal attachment is to living in a heated house that has electricity, running water, and this thing called the internet.

It's all terrible, to be sure. Now convince me it isn't true.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

While I agree that we had no obligation to intervene, I would also say that we aren't at the top necessarily because other places are so ***-backwards

[SoulSeekerz]

We Americans like to stick our nose in everybody's business. That is our main downfall and biggest problem.

[Smokey D]

I think it is a bigger problem not to intervene in things like Rwanda.

I'll have to think about my answer to the original question. It probably relates to my intuitions for right and wrong, though.

[Der Übermensch]

Obligation? No. Should have regardless, and taken the moral highground? Perhaps.

[GreyHam]

its certainly a rationally laid out argument: i think its overly cynical to say that human rights and the ideas of equality come only from the self interest of the few in power.

As for there being no objective value in human morality: i know a few scholars would disagree with you (objective vs subjective schools of morality) although my mind isnt made up on the idea of 'objective moral truths' of yet - there are strong arguments to contradict that statement though

its well worded but in general the main theme running through it is guilt: trying to make the reader feel guilty. i dont know whether the post was your words or your friends, but its more of an opinionated guilt trip than stone cold facts

[-1up!-]

Threadstarter is right; there is, in regards to power, no obligation to act in Rwanda if you reject the notion of objective morality, and see things coldly and rationally; in political science his analysis could de definitely qualified as realist with a touch of Marxism, not liberal at all. It is a cynical stance but it has the advantage of seeing things for what they are instead of staining the portrait with principles and moral values.

Of course I reject objective morality so I can't convince you otherwise. There is only an moral obligation to act in Rwanda under the ideas of warm compassion, defense of human rights and the sole idea (stripped of any self-interest) of peace, not to mention the idea that human life has a value.

[Reaganista]

the argument doesn't hold up because allowing rwanda to take place was against US power interests ultimately

and you also didn't explain why you think power is the only moral truth, you just kind of explained that power exists. utility undeniably exists as well, you didn't explain how this is any different and why it shouldn't be the moral truth

Morals are relative. Power is not.
i disagree with that too, different people care about control over different things

[griftadan]

the argument doesn't hold up because allowing rwanda to take place was against US power interests ultimately

explain

[Reaganista]

mass violence in any area of the world is against hegemonic economic interests, it interrupts trade, retards or reverses growth, allows extremists to seize power

failure to stop something that is plainly against hegemonic interests makes other countries suspect weakness and increase military spending either to prevent/protect against attack on themselves or prepare for an attack on an enemy which means the US has to maintain higher military spending and engage in periodic extreme shows of force

and most broadly, any kind of gross rejection of human rights such as that reduces the moral value of the lives of all the living

[Give me Beer]

They murdered ten of our (Belgium) para-troopers, so rationally speaking, our best interest would be to make sure the opposite party got into control because they should've been more friendly towards us, and would've looked better after our interests. Also, being an ex-colony, we should've made sure the ones that we wanted in power, stayed there, and that was the other side.

Cold, rationally speaking.

Personally, I believe in helping people who are less fortunate and weaker than you, so that would've been my reason. Personal ethics. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and all that.

[Reaganista]

who cares about belgium

[Give me Beer]

Congo? Rwanda? You should go there and say you're Belgian, you'd be suprised at the reactions. ;)

[-1up!-]

and most broadly, any kind of gross rejection of human rights such as that reduces the moral value of the lives of all the living

That's only if you presume that the lives of the living have moral value.

[Reaganista]

oh well it's a good thing that they do then i guess

[VomitStainedCretin]

Congo? Rwanda? You should go there and say you're Belgian, you'd be suprised at the reactions. ;)Yeah, just might get lucky and be allowed to die quick and painlessly.

[Reaganista]

well i meant who cares about belgian power interests not who has a grudge with belgium

but i was being glib anyway so w/e
:tomcruise:

[sunshineplaysbass]

ts: look up the theory of just war

basically, its our responsibility to do that kind of stuff

quoting spiderman, (haha)

with great power comes great responsibility

[-1up!-]

So what's that just war theory anyway... enlighten us

[Smokey D]

St Augustine's formulation that war (violence in general) may be just when it is a) launched by a correct authority b) in response to a just need and c) undertaken in the correct frame of mind.

But I agree. This forum isn't just about name dropping theories without context or explanation, unless you're particularly humorous when doing so. I expect this what you were getting at, eh 1up?

[griftadan]

mass violence in any area of the world is against hegemonic economic interests, it interrupts trade, retards or reverses growth, allows extremists to seize power

failure to stop something that is plainly against hegemonic interests makes other countries suspect weakness and increase military spending either to prevent/protect against attack on themselves or prepare for an attack on an enemy which means the US has to maintain higher military spending and engage in periodic extreme shows of force

and most broadly, any kind of gross rejection of human rights such as that reduces the moral value of the lives of all the living

how much economic interest do we hold in that region of the world? enough to justify the costs of keeping peace there?

[Reaganista]

no you see our failure to keep the peace there only ensures that we'll have to keep the peace elsewhere because the security dilemma becomes problematic when the hegemon refuses to enforce peace

[Smokey D]

Depends if you consider the opportunity cost. Maybe by not providing peace, the US has forgone substantial economic benefit it could have enjoyed.

[Give me Beer]

Yeah, just might get lucky and be allowed to die quick and painlessly.

Well, it's knid of schizophrenic really. Half of them hate you, and the other half considers you their "brother-in-law". My aunt worked there and apparently the question "When are the Belgians coming back?" is not all that uncommon. :0

I wasn't really talking about who had a grudge against us, but who "cared" about what we did. ;)

I know you were just trying to get a rise out of me. Smug American motherf'ckers. :0

[VomitStainedCretin]

Well, it's knid of schizophrenic really. Half of them hate you, and the other half considers you their "brother-in-law". My aunt worked there and apparently the question "When are the Belgians coming back?" is not all that uncommon. :0

I wasn't really talking about who had a grudge against us, but who "cared" about what we did. ;)

I know you were just trying to get a rise out of me. Smug American motherf'ckers. :0(a) I'm not American, I'm a Belgian national living in the UK (although not ethnically Walloon or Flemish and English is my first and only language), (b) Yeah, I can see where this bipolar attitude to Belgium comes from, as I'm sure the Belgians did a lot of good for administration and keeping tribal differences from overflowing in Rwanda etc but then Leopold in the Congo and the mining companies in Katanga in the 1960s really fvcked around with the native people.

[Smokey D]

Er, everything about Congo and Belgian policy in Africa represents the worst of human nature and European colonialism.

[Give me Beer]

(a) I'm not American, I'm a Belgian national living in the UK (although not ethnically Walloon or Flemish and English is my first and only language), (b) Yeah, I can see where this bipolar attitude to Belgium comes from, as I'm sure the Belgians did a lot of good for administration and keeping tribal differences from overflowing in Rwanda etc but then Leopold in the Congo and the mining companies in Katanga in the 1960s really fvcked around with the native people.

Sorry, only the first part of the post was directed at you, the last part was directed at Reaganista.

Smokey,

Well, mostly Leopold II's policies in Africa, do remember that the Belgian government only took over in Congo in 1908 and when they did the situation improved dramatically. The worst human rights abuses were committed under Leopold II when it was his own little private Colony (Congo Free State).

Not that there weren't a lot of bad things about the Belgian colonisation, but it wasn't the "worst of human nature and European colonialism" as you put it. :)

[-1up!-]

St Augustine's formulation that war (violence in general) may be just when it is a) launched by a correct authority b) in response to a just need and c) undertaken in the correct frame of mind.

But I agree. This forum isn't just about name dropping theories without context or explanation, unless you're particularly humorous when doing so. I expect this what you were getting at, eh 1up?

Theory name-dropping is indeed bad.

Using that simplified description of a just war, how does it apply though?

a) In what terms would the United States be deemed a correct authority, when its ultimate motives are its own interests, as they would be with any hegemon?

b) --

c)In the correct frame of mind; does that concern the principles behind the intervention? Who defines correct?

[Scythe404]

St Augustine's formulation that war (violence in general) may be just when it is a) launched by a correct authority b) in response to a just need and c) undertaken in the correct frame of mind.

I would begin by asking what is correct? What is just? What is a need? And again...what is correct? We could even ask what a frame of mind is (but that would be getting a bit picky).

It's all morality, which is informed from a personal, selfish perspective; the accumulation of experience from the only point of view you truly know: yours. Someone who has been the victim of betrayal would more vehemently oppose lies than someone who has not, for example.

I'm not saying such origins render morality useless nor that we should abandon it, but the current problem with it is the cultural and religious barriers that seperate us from creating a universal, human morality which can be agreed so we can oppose basic human suffering in all forms. Right now, the world is largely indifferent; one nation's cultures and religions are used as political tools, and opposing cultures and religions to that nation's are used to accentuate differences between people and even dehumanize other cultures (see: redneck American view of muslims).

The way I see it there are only two, true sets of absolutes, one of which are Indifference and Caring. Modern society's problem is that its own frame of mind is one of indifference. 'I'm #1. Me and mine come first.' I think that the only good prospect we have for peace and unity on a global level is the elimination of political and religious organization by any bodies, leading the way for morality to become something that can be truly universal and objective.

Of course, geography and general physical appearance then become an issue...so any chance of that seems all but impossible. The more I read into it the more I think a good sized depopulation of this planet and a clean slate to start over with would be a good thing. No person living in our current society could mentally cope with that, really, but objectively, it seems the best option. Luckily, the way the world seems to be heading, that's probably not an unrealistic scenario.