Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 03:30:52 +1000
Subject: Re: Ethics as a Figure of Nihilism


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_1wgvcpgmzoqFJX4ZCgahoA)

Not a divorce - a void.  On the one hand, individuals presuppose a future of inter-personal relationships that require mutually acceptable (ethical) behavior, for example, marriage..  

On the other hand, institutions i.e. States, who join with one or more other States to serve present interests, and violate such agreements when their interests change.  Example:  U.S./ Russia ABM agreement.

Hugh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mal  wrote:

  This raises an interesting question:  Do you (I mean anyone that cares to respond) think that there is a divorce between ethics and interests? 

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                    


      Hugh wrote:

      All,

      Up to this point I've been unable to find anything of interest in this discussion,  
      have nothing to offer, yet wonder why.

      Ethics as national policy seems an oxymoron.  Sacrificial death is not merely  the motif of suicide bombers, and the origin of Christianity, it is central to the concept of nation-statehood.

      When Lyotard and others speak of justice and the social bond, they presuppose a continuity of personal relationships and institutional support for those relationships 
      as they affect significant others, parents and children, extended families, tribes, communities.  Ethics are relevant.

      The concept of the nation-state presupposes personal relationships are subordinate to the nations's interests.  Citizens are, from time to time,obliged to fight and die for the state to preserve its interests.  
       
      A state's relation to other states is founded on interests, not ethics.  Fidelity and loyalty between states does appear, for a time, so long as mutual interests are served.  

      regards,
      Hugh





--Boundary_(ID_1wgvcpgmzoqFJX4ZCgahoA)

HTML VERSION:

 

This raises an interesting question:  Do you (I mean anyone that cares to respond) think that there is a divorce between ethics and interests? 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                   

 

 

Hugh wrote:

 

All,

 

Up to this point I've been unable to find anything of interest in this discussion, 

have nothing to offer, yet wonder why.

 

Ethics as national policy seems an oxymoron.  Sacrificial death is not merely  the motif of suicide bombers, and the origin of Christianity, it is central to the concept of nation-statehood.

 

When Lyotard and others speak of justice and the social bond, they presuppose a continuity of personal relationships and institutional support for those relationships

as they affect significant others, parents and children, extended families, tribes, communities.  Ethics are relevant.

 

The concept of the nation-state presupposes personal relationships are subordinate to the nations's interests.  Citizens are, from time to time,obliged to fight and die for the state to preserve its interests.  

 

A state's relation to other states is founded on interests, not ethics.  Fidelity and loyalty between states does appear, for a time, so long as mutual interests are served. 

 

regards,

Hugh