Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Shah: Is Supporting a Dictatorship Moral?

Rate this topic


TheEgoist

Recommended Posts

Thank you for the reply and I understand your point here. I am, however, not recommending any type of surrender. To the original question "Is Supporting a Dictatorship Moral?" my answer was and remains no.

Well, this is your fundamental mistake. Ethical principles are not commandments. This is intrsicism. Morality does not sit alone in the fact that you are or are not taking a coures of action. What you are doing cannot be said to be immoral or moral unless the context of the sitation is known. This is a fundamental error. The proper anwer is: "it depends".

Rand has a similar example when she discusses the VietNam war. Forget the essay, but her approach was essentially (I'm paraphrasing), "We should never have gone there because it was not in our interest, but now that we are there, the proper course is to fight vigorously to acheive victory."

Therefore, as a policy (a policy that should have been in effect before the Cold War, during the Cold War, and after), you would agree that supporting a dictatorship is not moral.

As a sort of Platonic ideal, sure. But you still haven't told me how this policy would have neutralized the Russian threat, since you haven't been able to assure me that everyone who is in a position to defeat the policy is coming along with us.

We should campaign for this as a policy. We should pressure others to follow this policy. However, if aspects beyond our control were to put the Russians in a similar situation, then those aspects have to be considered as part of the ethical consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As a sort of Platonic ideal, sure. But you still haven't told me how this policy would have neutralized the Russian threat, since you haven't been able to assure me that everyone who is in a position to defeat the policy is coming along with us.

I read your other post as well, but will reply to both with this one.

I am not in a position to make this assurance, and I recognize that this detracts from my argument. The only response I can offer to you is that there likely would have been no "Russian threat," because they would not have received US help, which, of course, was the main source of support. There is no guarantee that all states would come along with us. The only power we would have would be to economically isolate countries that do not come along with us, and diplomatically encourage all states to follow our lead.

I remember reading Rand's statements on Vietnam was well. I understand them and how she arrives at these conclusions, especially about a war. But, if we recognize that the initial support of a dictator was wrong, and we must support several subsequent dictators because we supported the first, how will this circle ever come to an end? Should we support an infinitely long string of dictators until the day arrives when there aren't any more?

We should campaign for this as a policy. We should pressure others to follow this policy. However, if aspects beyond our control were to put the Russians in a similar situation, then those aspects have to be considered as part of the ethical consideration.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read your other post as well, but will reply to both with this one.

I am not in a position to make this assurance, and I recognize that this detracts from my argument. The only response I can offer to you is that there likely would have been no "Russian threat," because they would not have received US help, which, of course, was the main source of support. There is no guarantee that all states would come along with us. The only power we would have would be to economically isolate countries that do not come along with us, and diplomatically encourage all states to follow our lead.

Yeah, I think that argument rests on the idea that you have slipped from "Western" aid to "US" aid, discounting aid received from anyone else. If you look at oil for instance, the progenitor companies of Royal Dutch Shell (UK, Netherlands), and Total (France) could easily have helped develop those assets for them. Regardless, if you can't guarantee, then the probability must weigh into the moral consideration.

Europe was far more complicit during the Cold War than was the US.

I remember reading Rand's statements on Vietnam was well. I understand them and how she arrives at these conclusions, especially about a war. But, if we recognize that the initial support of a dictator was wrong, and we must support several subsequent dictators because we supported the first, how will this circle ever come to an end? Should we support an infinitely long string of dictators until the day arrives when there aren't any more?

That is the interesting converstation. How do you reverse long standing policy decisions such as the policy toward the USSR? Surely you would agree that you would not do this by first reversing small policy decisions such as whether to support the Shah, without addressing the much largre contradiction in the room? As such, that conversation has to take place by looking at the totality. However, it might have meant that you continued to support the shah for a time while larger measures were taken to change course on Russia. In that case, continuing to support the shah might be the moral thing for a time, if only temporarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A free nation has the right to use military force against a rights-violating one, but definitely not the obligation.

Since, to a smaller or greater degree,all governments violate rights one should first answer this question: what amount of rights-violation authorizes the use of military force against another government? What is the threshold?

Further, before using outright force, there is a place for diplomatic measures. Mind you, carrying a big stick does add to the attention paid to your discourse, never mind how soft-spoken it may be.

I think the threshold is free speech, if a government removes free speech it leaves the people it rules no nonviolent mechanism to change it, and thus solidifies its unjust nature.

Moreover, the Soviets were not a factor in our decision to overthrow the government.

The Soviets were the dominating factor in nearly *every* foreign policy decision made for the past 50 years.

One can simply study history and understand that supporting a dictator and/or trying to establish a foreign government one feels is "proper" has, and will, always lead to a long-term cost greater than what one has gained in the short-term.

Your understanding of history then is extremely limited. One glaring contradiciton is South Korea, where we supported a pretty shitty dictator, Sigman Rhee, against an invading soviet and chinese backed communist force. We never went to war with South Korea, and today, in fact, South Korea is one of the worlds largest economies and one of the worlds freest nations.

Edited by Matus1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the interesting converstation. How do you reverse long standing policy decisions such as the policy toward the USSR? Surely you would agree that you would not do this by first reversing small policy decisions such as whether to support the Shah, without addressing the much largre contradiction in the room? As such, that conversation has to take place by looking at the totality. However, it might have meant that you continued to support the shah for a time while larger measures were taken to change course on Russia. In that case, continuing to support the shah might be the moral thing for a time, if only temporarily.

I am in agreement on this.

Given the policies we had pursued, and the state of the world as it was after we had helped to create it, a situation arose where supporting a dictatorship was at least construed as practical and at best moral, although not the ultimate solution to a much more complex problem.

Observe the fact that we agree it was poor policy to support the Soviets. It can be pointed to, through various and sundry examples throughout history, that a policy of supporting dictators or what one considers friendly regimes is net detrimental to the supporting government. I suppose you can say that it has not been detrimental in every case, as has been pointed out in South Korea and Japan, and I would concede that to you. It is what it is, and history does not guarantee the same thing will happen in the future in every instance. I am taking a mathematically unsophisticated average of all foreign policy decisions. Now, we did support the Soviets and Iran in different ways, (i.e. economically in the former vs politically in the latter) but we nevertheless provided support that resulted in undesirable long-term consequences. In the case of the Soviets, the consquences were obvious. In the case of Iran, the consequences were less obvious but still harmful, such as the taking of hostages, and the buildup of negative sentiment towards us from an irrational culture.

If politicians and leaders would at least recognize that our policies can benefit us but also harm us in unintended ways, then that would be some progress toward a coherent foreign policy where we wouldn't help create another superpower that poses a threat to us. We can "reverse" poor policy decisions by recognizing they were poor and by then not repeating them in the future.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of Iran, the consequences were less obvious but still harmful, such as the taking of hostages, and the buildup of negative sentiment towards us from an irrational culture.

I'm not sure why we should be concerned at all about negative sentiment coming from an irrational culture.

If politicians and leaders would at least recognize that our policies can benefit us but also harm us in unintended ways, then that would be some progress toward a coherent foreign policy where we wouldn't help create another superpower that poses a threat to us. We can "reverse" poor policy decisions by recognizing they were poor and by then not repeating them in the future.

I'm curious as to how you would have handled the USSR. Should we have destroyed them or should we have treated them as we treat China today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(With respect to adrock3215)

I'm curious, which ones?

I'm saying this based upon the particular way in which he developed his thinking. He clearly hates dictatorship, and is willing to isolates such countries on the basis that they'll fall under his own weight. He also admitted that the Soviet issue was the overriding issue and effetively made the integration between the two (USSR and Iran) after a little discussion.

Those I like.

His application of these is a little intrincist, and he's not too wiling to take offensive action, which his why I posted a few posts ago that the other option to dictatorship is to invade and replace with a rights respective govt. Those I don't like.

This post I found particularly unlikable.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=162885

I'm trying to give him a little credit here... :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall's (correctly and effectively, IMO) responded to most everything here, so I'm going to skip to the end:

I remember reading Rand's statements on Vietnam was well. I understand them and how she arrives at these conclusions, especially about a war. But, if we recognize that the initial support of a dictator was wrong, and we must support several subsequent dictators because we supported the first, how will this circle ever come to an end? Should we support an infinitely long string of dictators until the day arrives when there aren't any more?

Because the proper correction to your mistaken intrinsicist command of "never support dictators" isn't to adopt an intrinsicist command of "always support dictators." The correct approach is to hold an objective principle that supporting dictators is generally bad, but which recognizes context and will work with what facts we have in the real world.

For instance, in Vietnam, if we were to continue fighting, we would have been in the perfect position to make demands of the South Vietnamese. "Either adopt a constitutional government (in fact here, we have written on for you) that protects individual rights or we shall throw you to the (Communist) wolves."

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, in Vietnam, if we were to continue fighting, we would have been in the perfect position to make demands of the South Vietnamese. "Either adopt a constitutional government (in fact here, we have written on for you) that protects individual rights or we shall throw you to the (Communist) wolves."

Not to detract too much from the topic, but what exactly do you mean here when you say "if we were to continue fighting?" You mean after the Vietnamization policy took effect? As I recall we were in the thick of the fighting for quite some time, and thus in position to make demands. But in effect we weren't willing to concede the country to the communists less the dread domino theory go into effect. So the demand for a consitutional government was more of a request, because they knew as well as we did that we weren't going anywhere soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you consider flying planes into skyscrapers and sentiment equivalent?

Where do you think that sentiment gets directed?

Is english your first language?

Yes. I was being a little facetious but don't take offense. I was just pointing out that your statement was perhaps a little short-sighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding, the Russian influence in Iran was definitely on the wane during the upswing of nationalistic sentiment in the middle east before and following WWII. The Iranians were deeply resentful of British and Russian meddling in their affairs historically, and were determined to maintain national sovereignty. Now it is understandable that since Iran was a border country to the USSR that this made the situation more sensitive (the USSR could simply invade), but it seems clear that the US, like in Vietnam, had unjustified fears of Russian/communist hegemony there at least in the early years of the cold war, and would have been better off following a course of economic cooperation with Iran. The cold war was a zero sum game, that is if a state was not with us, they were (or could potentially be) with the Russians. So it was with this mentality that we continued in support of the Shah. Given the brutality of the Shah's CIA-trained secret police, were we still justified in imposing a ruler of our choosing who was less tolerant of individual rights than his predecessor, whom we had deposed?

But I would say that the cold war was not a unique event. There is always an international competition for resources and influence. We are currently engaged in one right now, with our old nemesis Russia, and also with China, for resource security, fair trade, etc. So actually it seems there is no way to separate a state's moral actions in the world from its economic and political interests. For example, if Sudan would give us an exclusive oil deal, we might also be willing to look the other way when it came to Darfur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is always an international competition for resources and influence. We are currently engaged in one right now, with our old nemesis Russia, and also with China, for resource security, fair trade, etc.
This is not a fait accompli, though. The "competition" between (say) the U.S. and U.K. is very different from that between the U.S. and Russia. In fact, if one is competition, then the other is properly called something else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to detract too much from the topic, but what exactly do you mean here when you say "if we were to continue fighting?" You mean after the Vietnamization policy took effect? As I recall we were in the thick of the fighting for quite some time, and thus in position to make demands. But in effect we weren't willing to concede the country to the communists less the dread domino theory go into effect. So the demand for a consitutional government was more of a request, because they knew as well as we did that we weren't going anywhere soon.

The Vietnam war was fought with a highly flawed strategy which had our military under severe restrictions - specifically, that we were not allowed to go on the offensive and simply attack North Vietnam, which would have meant their defeat in relatively short time - possibly even weeks.

You're thinking too far within the box of the military's policy of altruism and moral cowardice. What I am saying is that if we had fought unrestricted, we would have been in the position to make demands of South Vietnam, such that we would not have needed to "support a dictatorship."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Vietnam war was fought with a highly flawed strategy which had our military under severe restrictions - specifically, that we were not allowed to go on the offensive and simply attack North Vietnam, which would have meant their defeat in relatively short time - possibly even weeks.

You're thinking too far within the box of the military's policy of altruism and moral cowardice. What I am saying is that if we had fought unrestricted, we would have been in the position to make demands of South Vietnam, such that we would not have needed to "support a dictatorship."

If you recall, the reason we did not invade North Vietnam was because of the threat of an almost certain miltary response from China. This is something we wanted no part of, a rerun of the Korean conflict, except without the UN support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you recall, the reason we did not invade North Vietnam was because of the threat of an almost certain miltary response from China. This is something we wanted no part of, a rerun of the Korean conflict, except without the UN support.

And as I said, that fear was based on a mentality of moral cowardice. Please read the thread that spawned this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...