Realpolitik

[Hosnon]

I, for the most part, adhere to it. I am best described as an Act Utilitarian.

What is wrong with that?

[Selatius]

1. There's nothing wrong with it, except where it conflicts with the democratic will of the people.

If securing oil fields in the Middle East was not popular with the people in the street but that its security is vital to the business functions on both Wall Street and with small businesses across America, what would Realpolitik dictate?

[Hosnon]

2. Well, that depends.

If the cost of securing those oil fields would, in the long run, be greater than the benefit to such business, then those oil fields should not be secured.

Of course, Realpolitik, as I employ it, does not require omniscience, only the best knowledge available.

[Fovea]

3. The long run

In my way of thinking, any strategum or action that is not supportive of the common good is ultimately not realpolitik, because realpolitik (as practiced in 19thC Germany) seeks to sustain stablility and reduce risk, particularly risk associated with conflict. Any policy contrary to the public good eventually leads to revolution and carries the roots of its own destruction. Hence, Karl Rove was the enemy of the business class AND the evangelicals.

An echo of this can be seen in Machiavelli's advice to the prince who would maintain a principality on the back of a former republic.

In that regard, I do not see the actions post WWII by most of those who consider themselves masters of realpolitik (Dulles et al) to be in keeping with the primary goals of stability and sustainability of the status quo. Indeed, the actions of the pro western hegemons in the emerging cold war were brutal, and very amoral, but imbued with ideological drive.

One may embrace goals, but not to the extent of theoretical purity-- not and fulfill the purpose of realpolitik.

[Hosnon]

5. I disagree.

Many things that are not supportive of the common good, at a particular point in time, may eventually wind up being supportive of the common good (which may be your point).

But I also disagree that any policy contrary to the public good eventually leads to revolution; it may tend to lead to revolution but it is not a necessary causation.

In any event, I use the term in a loose way most associated with Act Utilitarianism. Basically, a sentence that involves the word "should" should explain why the advocated act is beneficial to something in order to make sense (e.g., "You should not commit adultery" seems meaningless without reference to something that the avoidance of adultery would benefit.)

[Fovea]

7. Eating one's broccoli makes one stronger later

The common welfare is not just turning kids loose in the candy store- that is laisser faire, and not what I am getting at.

But far more often than not, if you make your citizen's live through total war or other avoidable calamity for cynical reasons, they return the horror to you.

Stalin did not, but look at where the politburo is today. The children of the alien and sedition acts gave their parents the roaring twenties.

The children of Alan Dulles gave us free love and rock and roll.

I have no problem with act utilitarianism. Utilitarian philosophy when it gets to the Jeremy Bentham level, negates itself to a great degree, but your def is not at all offensive to me.

[Selatius]

4. Well, that's an agreable position, but the only question is "what costs?"

How would you measure costs in such a scenario? Do we measure the economic costs due to oil price instability? The cost in lives lost and bodies shattered? The cost in terms of billions expended or the frayed relationships with other powers such as the EU, Russia, and China? Or is it cost in terms of the taking into account all those variables?

[Hosnon]

6. Most likely your last sentence.

Oil, lives, relationships, etc., should all be valued in relation to each other in order to determine what action is appropriate.