Subject: Re: Ethics as a Figure of Nihilism
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 15:13:45 +0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Hugh,

I cannot see how ethics are seperated from interests at all. In your example below regarding the change in the interests of the US, would that be because of some ethical axiom which they are following to initiate the change? Such as, place 'my' country's welfare before all others. (I realise that the beginning of such 'changes' is a chimera, or like a dog chasing its own tail when it is damn sure that the tail is a bunny rabbit, or a 'rogue' nation state with 'defensive' nuclear capabilities, so the dog runs around and around, fueled by its own media-representation as an effecient tail-chasing dog, then the tail gets angry because it sees this menacing great dog after it...when did that tail start wagging, and when did the rest of the dog forget that it made the tail wag? hehehe sorry, I can't help it, I am Australian:).

A difference between the regulative ethics of the politician, and the ethics of the everyday? Surely this itself is ethical, each to his own language game?

It depends on what level 'you' are abstracting the scenario to how ethical (which ethics?) it is... everyone is building and defending their sandcastles out of their own simulacra sand-box. Do nation states have to operate as ethically to each other, than to their own people? Of course the obvious reply is, what is in the global interest is in humanity's interest which is therefore in the nation's interest...

Glen.


  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

HTML VERSION:

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