Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

[Belinda]

I always side with the winners. May the best win!

That's the strategy of every loser.

No, that is the strategy of every opportunist.

You see, if they are going to fight, they are going to need weapons. There is a lot of money to be made in selling them, preferably, even to both sides. It does not matter which side exactly shoots a bullet, because in both cases, someone is going to be willing to spend money on a new one.

Have you any moral principles, Godelian? That is the question really.

[godelian]

Have you any moral principles, Godelian? That is the question really.

That is a category error. Morality applies to individual behavior, not to geopolitics:

ChatGPT: Are geopolitics governed by morality?

Geopolitics are not fundamentally governed by morality—they are primarily driven by interests, power dynamics, and strategic considerations. That said, morality can influence geopolitical decisions, but it is rarely the determining factor.

Here's a breakdown:

1. Interests Over Ideals
Nations act in ways that protect or advance their national interests—security, economic power, resources, and global influence.
Morality is often used rhetorically (e.g., promoting democracy, human rights), but decisions tend to reflect strategic calculations rather than ethical imperatives.

2. Realism vs. Idealism
In realist theory (dominant in geopolitics), states pursue power and survival in an anarchic international system—morality is secondary.
Idealism/liberalism emphasizes cooperation, international law, and moral values, but in practice, even liberal states compromise morals when interests are at stake.

3. Selective Morality
States may intervene in one crisis for "humanitarian" reasons while ignoring or even supporting repression elsewhere.
This selectivity exposes the instrumental use of moral language to justify actions that serve strategic goals.

4. Influence of Public Opinion and Norms
Democratic governments may be pushed by public opinion or international pressure to behave morally (e.g., sanctions against war crimes).
International norms (e.g., Geneva Conventions) do shape behavior to a degree, but enforcement is inconsistent and often politicized.

5. Case Examples
U.S. support for authoritarian regimes during the Cold War (e.g., Pinochet, Saudi monarchy) highlights interest over morality.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is justified by Moscow in moralistic terms (e.g., protecting Russians), but reflects geopolitical ambitions.

In summary:
Geopolitics are shaped by power and interests, not governed by morality. Moral considerations can influence or frame decisions, but they are often secondary and selectively applied.

In the context of geopolitics, I mention morality merely rhetorically. I am perfectly willing to compromise morals when interests are at stake. I further moral goals only very selectively, and only if it is useful to justify actions that serve commercial goals. Furthermore, I am not interested in public opinion, unless I can manipulate it to my advantage. That is why the American State Department or the Russian GRU would immediately hire someone like me, if I were available for the job, which I am not, because I am only willing to spend time to further my own interests and not theirs.

[Skepdick]

I always side with the winners. May the best win!

That's the strategy of every loser.

No, that is the strategy of every opportunist.

You see, if they are going to fight, they are going to need weapons. There is a lot of money to be made in selling them, preferably, even to both sides. It does not matter which side exactly shoots a bullet, because in both cases, someone is going to be willing to spend money on a new one.

OK, so you agree then.

Sounds like a losing strategy for everyone involved.

[godelian]

Sounds like a losing strategy for everyone involved.

No, it is a one-way bet for the merchant selling ammunition to both sides.

[Belinda]

Have you any moral principles, Godelian? That is the question really.

That is a category error. Morality applies to individual behavior, not to geopolitics:

ChatGPT: Are geopolitics governed by morality?

Geopolitics are not fundamentally governed by morality—they are primarily driven by interests, power dynamics, and strategic considerations. That said, morality can influence geopolitical decisions, but it is rarely the determining factor.

Here's a breakdown:

1. Interests Over Ideals
Nations act in ways that protect or advance their national interests—security, economic power, resources, and global influence.
Morality is often used rhetorically (e.g., promoting democracy, human rights), but decisions tend to reflect strategic calculations rather than ethical imperatives.

2. Realism vs. Idealism
In realist theory (dominant in geopolitics), states pursue power and survival in an anarchic international system—morality is secondary.
Idealism/liberalism emphasizes cooperation, international law, and moral values, but in practice, even liberal states compromise morals when interests are at stake.

3. Selective Morality
States may intervene in one crisis for "humanitarian" reasons while ignoring or even supporting repression elsewhere.
This selectivity exposes the instrumental use of moral language to justify actions that serve strategic goals.

4. Influence of Public Opinion and Norms
Democratic governments may be pushed by public opinion or international pressure to behave morally (e.g., sanctions against war crimes).
International norms (e.g., Geneva Conventions) do shape behavior to a degree, but enforcement is inconsistent and often politicized.

5. Case Examples
U.S. support for authoritarian regimes during the Cold War (e.g., Pinochet, Saudi monarchy) highlights interest over morality.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is justified by Moscow in moralistic terms (e.g., protecting Russians), but reflects geopolitical ambitions.

In summary:
Geopolitics are shaped by power and interests, not governed by morality. Moral considerations can influence or frame decisions, but they are often secondary and selectively applied.

In the context of geopolitics, I mention morality merely rhetorically. I am perfectly willing to compromise morals when interests are at stake. I further moral goals only very selectively, and only if it is useful to justify actions that serve commercial goals. Furthermore, I am not interested in public opinion, unless I can manipulate it to my advantage. That is why the American State Department or the Russian GRU would immediately hire someone like me, if I were available for the job, which I am not, because I am only willing to spend time to further my own interests and not theirs.

As you describe, that is the way with geopolitics. Is it impossible then that geopolitics change to the utilitarianism ethic?