Within the hallowed halls of academia, there is a terrific and vibrant discussion about ethics and morality, about how we should conduct our lives and what the best way to live a good life is. There are utilitarians, contracturalists, rights theorists, all kinds of fun thoughts flitting about. However, amongst the wider population, this great conversation fails to penetrate. Among the wider population, the moral debate is a mere shadow of what goes on at the universities. Increasingly I observe a contest among young people in the public sphere between two equally simplistic, poor moral conceptions–the puritanical ideology, which is under decay, and the libertarian ideology, which is on the rise.
Tag: Democracy
Rethinking Realism
In international relations, realism commonly comes under attack. Realism is the belief that states are rational and that they pursue their interests and their interests exclusively through rational means. Realism is a descriptive theory–it makes claims about how the world is. Many people criticise realism on the grounds that this is very much not the whole story. It is often unclear what a state’s interests are in the first place, and there are many cases in which states act in ways that seem to run contrary to their interests. States sometimes make irrational mistakes. We know that states are not exclusively rational because we care who determines our foreign policy. If all leaders were rationally and pursued the same set of interests rationally, all leaders would be equivalent to one another in policy. Insofar as there are policy differences among different leaders, there is either disagreement about interests, more rational and less rational policies in pursuit of interests, or some combination of both of these things. This often makes realism seem reductionist. It ignores the way we construct our interests, taking them as given. It also ignores the mistakes that people make, the capacity for leaders to be incompetent. However, I do not think realism can be dismissed on these grounds. Instead, it requires re-framing.
The Democracy Pendulum
I was reminded of an old thought I had about democracy the other day that I had not as of yet put into blog form. The contention is basically this–one cannot derive the social interest from an amalgamation of individual or subgroup interests. Let me explain.
How to End Corruption
It is often said that corruption is just a part of politics, that nothing can be done about it, because all people are vulnerable to corruption. Power, it’s said, corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. These notions are bandied about, but not, in my view, well-considered. It is not as if one day a perfectly wholesome individual gains political power and then, as if by some dark magic, corruption ensues. There are factors that bring corruption about, sources of it, if you will. If we were to target these sources, I venture to say that we could, if not end corruption, substantially reduce its incidence.
Hurricane Sandy and the Least Productive Congress
Yesterday, some republicans from states affected by Hurricane Sandy grew extraordinarily angry with House Speaker John Boehner for delaying a vote on a senate-approved $60 billion disaster relief bill. Are they right to be angry? I shall endeavour to examine the situation and reach what conclusions I can.
Continue reading “Hurricane Sandy and the Least Productive Congress”
