Right and Aggression
In the wake of the Georgia/Russia/South Ossetian kerfuffle I’d like to consider the implications of expansion as policy for a country. The invasion and counter-invasion (which was mostly missed by me due to my disconnect with the Internet and news sources over the last two weeks), is something I’m not qualified yet to comment. I’m still reading up about, one source here.
However, in the abstract, especially in the wake of recent military adventures and the as well the Kosovo and Ossetian moves toward independence, one might consider when and if national expansion is justifiable. Certain elements of the left as well as the pacifistic supporters are of the opinion that attacking or anything but “defensive” wars are inexcusable in all circumstances. This belies the fact that every nation that exists, owes its very existance to a past non-defensive war. The motions of peoples in the antiquity, clans settling and moving were all accompanied by violence. If only defensive wars are justified, how are those wars justifiable if indeed the place being defended was initially acquired in a way which is a priori unjust, that is if aggressive conflict is assumed unjust.
Now, I’m well aware the “everyone does it” isn’t a moral justification. In ethics, there is rarely a cut and dried simplistic path to the good. There are instead tensions, or a weighting that must be done. One must evaluate the good and other less salutary aspects to find a solution which maximizes the good. Similarly in political conflict there are times when war (even wars of aggression) are viewed by those evaulating the possibilities as the best possibility. For a people the option of expressing their independence can be seen as one which justifies much. Manifest destiny drove expansion of the US states from a small colony on the East coast across the continent to the other sea. Expansion did not always occur peacefully (and it is naive to expect that an expanding industrializing civilization can abide peacefully in contact with a nomadic tribal one).
Roman expansion in part was driven by economic goals and gains as well as a notion that Roman civilizing influences were in the best interest of the conquered nation. Glen Cook, in a fantasy novel which I read in my (mispent?) youth, had a character remark to another that “no villain sees himself as evil”. That is the villain of the piece is acting for and on the behalf of what he perceives as good. And that fact is something which is wise to recall.
Mr Putin as well as almost all or leaders are honestly doing what they feel is “right” and in the best interests of their people. While is easier to assume your personal take on the world is “righteous” and those with whom you disagree are in the wrong, most of the time the “other” guy, even those with a wildly different idea of what is right to do, has performed the same sort of reasoning, but with a different set of starting assumptions and “weighting” of values and also things he’s right and doing good. That makes the world a little more complicated, but at the same time is a more realistic view of the way things are.
Tagged with: just • Ossetian • Russia • War
Filed under: Ethics & Morality • Government • Mark O. • War
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Your comment that “Mr Putin as well as almost all or leaders are honestly doing what they feel is “right” and in the best interests of their people.” is half right. I am sure he thinks it is best for the Russian people and the return of the Russian empire. But I doubt that he thinks it is right. Even he is not that cynical.
You have to understand that the problem in Georgia is almost entirely of Russian making; the only Russian citizens in that area or those made citizens by fiat to provide a pretext for invasion. From an article I wrote elsewhere, a brief explanation: “Russia militarily supported the expulsion of the majority ethnic Georgian population from both Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the early 1990’s and granted the remaining residents of both provinces Russian citizenship by fiat years later though there was no legal nexus for the granting of this status. Claiming that the newly-minted Russian citizen’s support of independence or annexation under the principle of self-determination justifies either makes a mockery of the concept of self-determination and indicates that the best way for a country to attack inconvenient sovereignty is to launch pogroms against those ethnicities considered undesirable and offer citizenship and eventual independence as motivational spoils to the victors.”
The Russians are long-term planners – geopolitical chess-players – and this was a cold, calculated political move with no real consideration for morality. Look at their statements already to Modlova regarding situation in Trans-Dneister and to the Ukraine regarding the Crimean Peninsula after their invasion of Georgia. The writing is on the wall regarding Russia’s expansionist plans, and the well-being of its targeted area, and the morality of taking them over, is not a consideration at all.
Bob,
I agree with the second paragraph, as you will notice that is in synch with the article I cited.
However, that doesn’t contradict the notion that a leader finds “right” what is in the best interest of his people. Was it right or wrong for Jean Valjean to steal bread for his family? It is “wrong” to steal, but for what purpose, to save the lives of a family is the rightness or wrongness still black and white?
There is no Russian need here that approaches a “theft for necessity” level. To the contrary, Russia is destroying a country to meet non-essential wants to which it has no legal or moral right.
Bob,
I agree, but that’s not the point. The point is that Putin (and the Russian leadership) believe not are acting morally and in the best interst of the in nation.
Understanding forms the basis of communication. That is the point. Nobody thinks themselves the villain, if you operate on the assumption that Russia thinks is doing the moral good and what is right for the country … what does that mean for understanding them?
I’ll hold off on my response until you clarify the typo in this sentence “The point is that Putin (and the Russian leadership) believe not are acting morally and in the best interst of the in nation.”
Bob,
Sorry, I believe that nobody (or essentially nobody) sees themselves as a villain, i.e., acts intentionally in what they perceive as an evil manner.
The point is that Putin (and the Russian leadership) believe that they are acting morally and in the best interest of their nation.
It is for us to understand how they see that, only then can we communicate with them.