If you start from the premise that western ideals are good (in whatever moral sense you want to take it- utilitarian benefits from individual freedoms, personal liberty as an absolute good) and something worth promoting, then we have a moral duty to intervene in causes that we value as good. Else, we promote, by inaction and tolerance, the opposite of what we value.
This is my distillation of the NeoCon argument. As an American liberal, I find it oddly persuasive. I, like everyone hear I imagine, loathe North Korea's government. I find it cruel, dehumanizing, and the equivalent of being a slave to the state. I think we have a better (in whatever sense you want to want to use it) form of government. That's a moral judgement I think most of us are comfortable making.
So then, how much should we support groups that are fighting for causes we value? What percent of GDP should go towards that?
This is my distillation of the NeoCon argument. As an American liberal, I find it oddly persuasive. I, like everyone hear I imagine, loathe North Korea's government. I find it cruel, dehumanizing, and the equivalent of being a slave to the state. I think we have a better (in whatever sense you want to want to use it) form of government. That's a moral judgement I think most of us are comfortable making.
So then, how much should we support groups that are fighting for causes we value? What percent of GDP should go towards that?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/KEPvhF
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire