I don't think 'evil' is the word to use. 'Evil' doesn't really exist at the level of geo-politics. Russia benefits from a weakened and divided US. That's enough right there really without going into morals.Is Russia so evil
Yes and no. I think we have to be conscious of the motivations, yes, but if morality is to have any meaning, it can't have an exception for doing a bad thing to enough people.
I like the idea but in practice it breaks down rather quickly when you try and apply it comparatively. Also, nation-states are not known to be moral actors. Morality isn't what has determined our participation in any conflict in the past. Moral connotations are used as justification during and after the fact but they are never causative. Until the UN or whatever comes after it gets some real teeth that overrides national sovereignty, it's just a fun thing to talk about. I don't even advocate for that, I'm not certain that a united world government would be a good thing. An additional point, when I try and analyze this with game theory, I can't imagine a scenario where a nation state benefits from being a moral actor. All being a moral actor does is restrict the number of potential moves you can make, which gives your 'opponents' advantage, because they know that there are actions you will not take, so they are free to walk all over those known vulnerabilities. Example, Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work as a deterrent if one side states 'Even in the event of a hostile launch, we will not fire nuclear missiles.' It doesn't matter one whit that not launching missiles is the moral action. In fact in this scenario, it's MORE moral to say 'We will nuke you if you nuke us' because it prevents missiles from flying in the first place.if morality is to have any meaning, it can't have an exception for doing a bad thing to enough people.
I mean, this is true, but not really the point. After all, it's just as true in your day-to-day life as well.An additional point, when I try and analyze this with game theory, I can't imagine a scenario where a nation state benefits from being a moral actor.
But there will always be a difference in penalties from one actor to another. If you only hold a principle when it doesn't cost you anything, you can't call it your principle. At the very least, I wish we could stop pretending that we as a country have some kind of moral high ground when that is so clearly not the case.
Agreed on all counts. I'm trying to say that assigning morality to the actions of geopolitical actors is stupid. Self-interest is the highest virtue possible at that level, to the point of mutually assured destruction. I don't see a way out and if someone does please share with the group. Maybe Would be a place to start, but I can't see how that would progress into something that changes behavior on a scale that matters to issues relating to foreign interference in democratic processes.we could stop pretending that we as a country have some kind of moral high ground when that is so clearly not the case.
The answer to your last statement is right there--we stop saying that it's "stupid" to apply virtue to large-scale decisions.
Ok, replace 'stupid' with 'completely ineffectual' and what changes? I'm sorry to sound snarky about this, but it seems to be unsolvable. We're American. We're embarrassed by the actions of our political system/politicians. TFG is Russian, he's embarrassed by the actions of his political system/politicians. Now what? Go 'Our politicians are slightly less corrupt than yours because they aren't literally murdering rivals in the streets?' Sure, we can say that a lot, but then what? What value is drawn by comparing them? What value is there in saying, in isolation 'Our politicians are completely lacking in virtue.'