A hypothetical with current events....

[Eurynomus]

Alright, I feel the need to put this situation into a hypothetical because I know more focus will be put on the fact that this situation wouldnt happen vs. the seeming contradiction that I really care about.

Alright, well not really a contradiction so much as that I'm just confused. I read Dr. Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein's speech on "Just War Theory vs. American Self-Defense" http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...-war-theory.asp and what it basically comes down to is that we should do what is in our rational self-interest to protect our country in war, versus going into war with altruistic motives.

Ideally, the entire world would recognize this principle and there would be no issues, or very few issues with a country doing what is in its rational self-interest to survive. That is, if the whole world recognized this principle as valid. Unfortunately, this is far from what is going on right now.

So, if we were to act in our rational self-interest, to the extent that Dr. Brook and Mr. Epstein advocate, at least, would this not upset the rest of the world? I just started reading an article in an Istanbul newspaper http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&al...09&hn=35500 and noticed the anti-US slant. There are several points in the article, such as when it mentions that, "For the past month, every Bush administration spokesperson has repeatedly insisted that Israel’s assault on Lebanon must continue until “the conditions that created the conflict are eliminated” – that is, Hizbollah is pulverized, which means all of southern Lebanon is pulverized." or, "Peace is the enemy of US and Israeli plans in the region at this point." that make clear the feelings of this particular writer, and, from what I can gather (based on other articles I have read, other forums, and the news), a majority of the world.

These sentiments seem to be in strict opposition to the Egoist approach to war, which would require not that we seek only peace for the sake of peace (at the probable price of still rising tensions), but that we seek to accomplish whatever it is we need to do in order to ensure our peace and freedom.

My question is this, and perhaps it is a bit farfetched, but bear with me, I'm interested in the principle. Suppose the U.S. really did go to war with the Egoist approach, versus claiming to go to war "for the Afghan people" and "for the Iraqi people", etc. And suppose the U.S. made clear its intentions and why it was going to war. This, while I believe it would be moral, would not be looked upon happily by the rest of the world, or the altruistic United Nations. Here is the hypothetical: What if this angered the rest of the world to the point where they launched a massive invasion and attempted destruction of the United States? What would have been the moral thing to do in the first place? Would it have been moral to go to war based on our self-interest, or should we have hestitated because it was ultimately in our self-interest to do so (due to threat of the world turning against us)?

Maybe it could be said that if, in the end, the world is going to turn against us for our seemingly aggressive policies, it would not be in our self-interest to go to war in the first place; it would, in fact, be self-destructive. But, if the people of a nation are to act morally, they must not let their rights be violated at all, thus they must go to war in the first place.

I'm clearly missing something here, because this seems like a juxtaposition. What are your thoughts?

[softwareNerd]

... if the people of a nation are to act morally, they must not let their rights be violated at all, thus they must go to war in the first place.

This is not true within the context of your hypothetical. Your example assumes more than annoyance on the part of other countries, and more than mildly harmful actions on their part; instead, you assume they will destroy the U.S. If such a far-fetched scenario were to be true, then a moral country would not have a moral obligation to act any more than a jew being hauled off to concentration camp has a moral obligation to risk nearly-certain death by fighting his Nazi captors.

As for the assumptions in the hypothetical...

The mullahs behind the guns will not start liking the U.S.. As for the rest, it is the U.S. that undermines its own intellectual case: by insisting that democracy is the fundamental political principle, by agreeing that it ought to be taking extreme care to prevent civilian deaths, and by agreeing to fight by constraining rules. Then, when the U.S. wants to act against a popular religious leader, or when some civilians are killed, or when a soldier makes fun of a Koran, it comes across as hypocritical. If the U.S. asserted the right principles and acted with moral certainty, I think more of the "middle-of-road" people (in the US and outside) would see the U.S.'s point, would not think that the U.S. is hypocritical, and -- overall -- less of them would people would dislike the U.S.

As for the second assumption, even if a whole lot of people were to dislike the U.S. even more than they do today, it is way too far-fetched to think they will attempt to attack the US. For instance, why would China want the US destroyed when the U.S. is a huge customer and the U.S. navy is the primary force that protects oil-supplies shipped to China? Why would Russia want the US destroyed as long as we let their local mafias alone? As for Europe attacking the U.S. ... that won't happen. Who then?

As for the third assumption, even if one of these countries attempts to attack the U.S., the only one that could inflict considerable damage would be the U.S.S.R. using an old cold-war style "destroy and be destroyed" attack.

[Eurynomus]

Right right, as I said, I know this is way too farfetched for it ever to occur, all things considered. I'm asking about the basic principle, using a hypothetical situation (that is PURELY hypothetical). Let me attempt to simplify the situation. DO NOT compare this hypothetical to actual contries, because there would clearly be a lot of information missing, and a lot of things not taken into account. So forget that, strictly consider the hypothetical, if you will:

Country A is minding its own business, doing its thing, being free and producing. Countries B and C don't like what Country A stands for, so they fund a group of individuals to commit an act of mass-terrorism on Country A, and openly support the ideology that opposes Country A. Countries B and C, and all other countries of a similar nature that officialy support the ideology of aggression towards Country A now pose a serious threat to Country A's freedom.

For Country A to act morally would involve not only destroying the regimes that committed the act of terrorism, but destroying whatever realistic threat is posed as well and implementing military action on whatever nations officially constitute that threat.

It would be in Country A's self-interest to act in this way. [Or wouldn't it? Is my interpretation of Dr. Brook's Egoist War approach flawed?]

If it is in fact in Country A's self-interest to act in this manner, suppose that going into this action, Country A becomes aware of the fact that the entire rest of the world is against what Country A is doing, and tells Country A that if it follows through, it will be invaded quickly and mercilessly, and annihilated.

So, Country A could not follow through, because ultimately, it would not be in Country A's self-interest (in the interest of self-preservation) to do so. Yet, this would prohibit Country A from acting with integrity (because it could not take action against Countries B and C), wouldn't it? If I am not missing anything, what is the deal here? How does Country A act with integrity?

[KendallJ]

Beware hypotheticals when you do not understand a concept.

You are hunting deer for your survival in the high mountains. You spot one, but you also are positioned below a shelf of snow and know that your gunshot will cause an avalanche which will kill you. You must act for your survival, but acting in a particular way for your survival will get you killed. Does the avalanche prevent you from acting morally? No.

Countries will react the way they will react. That must be factored into your choices, even if they react irrationally. The fact that man or nations have the capacity to act irrationally is a fact of reality, just as the snow shelf is. To act ignorantly of the relevant facts of reality is imoral.

Solution: find another way to kill your deer.

Your hypothetical is only confusing when you realize that you purposely "defined out" the solution. When the hypothetical consists of "anything you do might get you killed", then the only answer is, there is nothing to do. But then it is a very useless hypothetical.

[Eurynomus]

Haha very good point. Thank you for the response... and thank you for directing me towards the issue you had addressed earlier with hypotheticals.

[Inspector]

I'm clearly missing something here, because this seems like a juxtaposition. What are your thoughts?

What you are missing is that this "world invasion" would NEVER happen. There are only two kinds of critics of a self-interested American self-defense.

1) Limp-wristed european globalists. These people wouldn't stand up to China, Saddam, North Korea, etc. Why the hell would they stand up to us?

2) Those nations who are already dedicated to our destruction. They would either be crushed under such a policy, or would realize the jig was up, and would abandon their attacks on us.

Note that neither of the above would result in a new attacker against us.

[Time_Maker]

A world invasion of the USA would never happen, but for different reasons then what is listed above.

Reason one: The USA is the freest country on earth. Freedom attracts the most intelligent, hard working people. Those people in turn could create new weapons to defend and fend the USA away from any would be attackers.

Reason two (which is tied into reason one): Rational people do not work under the point of a gun. For every other country on earth to attack the USA, it would have to imply that every other country on earth hates and despises freedom. If those countries despise freedom, then those countries would experience a server "brain drain" which would end up crippling the rest of the world.

Reason three: The way I read into your hypothetical, it sounds like there are only two pure philosophies in existence, life and death (or freedom and enslavement, etc). In any battle between life and death, when each one is stated clearly and consistently, freedom always wins.

I hope this helps you.

By the way, I am new on the board, and I look forward to responding to more of these questions, and exchanging information with everyone.

[Eurynomus]

Haha, thank you all for your responses, my question has been thoroughly answered -- and I am also thoroughly aware of the fact that a world invasion of the US would never happen.

The only reason I put it in terms of the US and a world invasion was because I was not immediately aware of another situation where this same principle is applicable (although Kendall provided the much simpler and easier to illustrate avalanche scenario). It was the question about an abstract principle that I was trying to get across, really not any link between specific events so much as the moral question in general. So, sorry for any confusion, and thank you for your responses -- I will beware of hypotheticals in the future.