Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 573
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 573 Nov 2007
Morality
One of the worst faults of the global political stranglehold held by nation-state governments and keeping the whole human race in thraldom is its immorality. Despite all the attention lavished on moral purposes for the subjects of these governments, with its emphasis upon the need for obedience in peace and self-sacrifice in war, national ethics are narrow and self-seeking. The demands of high standards of conduct and behaviour are hypocritical.
The standards of citizenship inculcated in schools and official propaganda contrast startlingly with the behaviour of the nation-state leaders. That is often pitifully corrupt, and is often flatly against what is accounted acceptable and moral in the dealings of the citizens with each other.
Selfishness and immoral dealing, banned in theory in the moral codes, are flagrantly and notoriously reversed when the actions of the state are at issue.
Apart from bribery of foreign rulers or companies (as in the recent case of the British government's refusal to pursue the firm BAE for its bribery of Saudi princes), the casual and regular support of arms export is standard. This evil trade is not only countenanced but defended on grounds of national economic or other benefits. Profit comes before morality.
The sharpest conflict between the claims of morality and the nation-state's pursuit of more mundane goals is seen in the activities of the spy services. These have generally been assumed to be free of all moral considerations, apart from the one criterion, loyalty to the state. However, it is notorious that spies are often enough double agents, i.e. that they work for both their own paymasters and for their antagonists. This has the peculiar disadvantage that it is sometimes impossible to tell for which side the spy is working. Morality is no guide, since if personal morality were an issue the spy would probably be unsuitable for his particular function.
The recognition of the essential immorality of the sovereign state goes back a long way. When the Elizabethans described an ambassador as one sent to lie abroad for his country, they hit the mark. Duplicity and lying were the stock in trade of ambassadors of the Renaissance and their successors, if having more sophisticated methods, have no better morals. Every sort of immorality is assumed to be acceptable if done in the service of the state by the approved servants of the state: surprise is only expressed that this should be questioned.
The canker at the heart of the international system is that sovereignty is assumed to be absolute. That subjects of a ruler are to have no loyalty to any other; and therefore in case of conflict they must act unquestioningly on behalf of the state to which they belong, no matter how immoral or outrageous. The idea of greater loyally is not something that the sovereign state rulers can tolerate. Only if they have come to accept that other, perhaps greater, loyalties may exist, will they be willing to allow subjects to have free choice and act as moral beings.
This behaviour contributes to making international relations often no more than a preparation for conflict, ending at times in warfare and war is merely a continuation of previous conflict between the protagonists that have preceded it. Moral behaviour is not a consideration. Indeed, it simply does not occur to most people that any such consideration is relevant.
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|