"America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
--John Quincy Adams, 1821

He was a wise man, would that our rulers could see this still today. But I wonder if it isn't almost a (what would the word be?) Vico-ian law of nations that Republics must deteriorate into empires?

It sounds wise. Perhaps it is. But what is a just nation with the means to prevent injustice to do with the likes of Sudan? The Africans have suffered unspeakable brutality at the hands of the Arabs. Three-hundred thousand murdered, another million and a half exiled to the desert. Is it permissable to stand by and "wish them well"?

Is it permissable to stand by and "wish them well"?

Yes.

There's a jillion Chinese oppressed by their own government. Are we to step in there, too? That's the problem with oppression--it's a popular pastime. But in order for us to go and right wrongs we have to infringe on our liberties and freedoms at home. America is the last bastion of true individual liberties and freedom in the world. If we go, it's gone.

The atrocities in Sudan exceed oppression. They constitute genocide. You're telling me that our liberties concerning taxation or privacy outweigh hundreds of thousands of lives? What about millions of lives? Or billions? Is there no conceivable evil outside of our borders that justifies, even demands, the use of American military power abroad? I take it your answer is 'No'.

I don't have a problem with it necessarily (as turmoil builds nations), but when held up as a nation of lofty goals and ideals, it's interesting that our history is full of continental conquests that were really nothing but blatant land grabs. Florida from Spain, Southwestern U.S. from Mexico, annexation of Texas to keep slavery alive, Oregon from the British, Lousinana 'Purchase' from France (we would have taken it if not legally purchased), Western expansion by Polk in general, War of 1812 masking an attemped takeover of Canadian territories.

Sorry Ralph, we can't save the World. It's up to their governments to step up not ours.

"It's up to their governments to step up not ours."

Whose government? The Sudanese government is composed of Arabs. It is systematically exterminating and expelling the African inhabitants of Darfur. It is "their" (the Africans') government in name only.

I don't care. Point is, that it's not OUR government.

Hypothetical: If a muslim nation or nations conquered Europe and began to systematically exterminate and expel Christians (in the hundreds of thousands or millions), is it your position that the U.S. would be justified (perhaps required) by its own principles to do nothing?

As for Adams's quotation, I find it interesting that, had the French subscribed to its doctrine, there probably would not have been an America to isolate. In other words, we likely owe our very existence to the sort of intervention Adams opposes.

Nice twist Ralph, but I don’t think our government should be in the humanitarian effort business in any form or for any reason. It might be argued that your Muslim/Christian scenario is already happening, albeit slowly and more covertly, but at no point should we get involved.

Also, the French didn’t help us eradicate the British due to some heartfelt largesse. They were helping us to stick it to their European archrivals and it was certainly better for them to do it on our turf than on theirs. In that light and in general, there’s always some selfish reason to intercede and some sort of payback expected, isn’t there?

Anyway, why not other nations? Why is it that we are always expected to be the ones to go in there guns blazing putting our troops on the line?

Unless we have a clear and vested interest to take action there, we should stay out.

France's motives are irrelevant. They intervened on our behalf. If Adams had been their leader, they would not have intervened.

"I don’t think our government should be in the humanitarian effort business in any form or for any reason."

Why not?

I am attempting to make a general point using Darfur as an example, but let me digress for a moment into the specifics of the example. Who knows whether the reporting on 60 Minutes can be trusted, but if it is accurate, then the U.S. is complicit in the attrocities being committed in Sudan. According to the report (aired last Sunday), the U.S. has not pressed the Sudanese government to end the violence because the Sudanese government has been providing intelligence concerning Al Qaeda to the U.S. (bin Laden was a resident of Sudan for a number of years).

"France's motives are irrelevant".

How can you say motives are not relevant? There generally has to be some motive for us to do anything. Now, you might argue that the motive for us to go into Darfur should be a humanitarian one, but I disagree and (luckily, so far) so does our government.

There are a lot of little fires in this crazy World of ours and we can't be expected to put them all out.

We support the UN and AU mission in Sudan, with both money, logistics and weapons. What more are we supposed to do? The US isn't a church. We don't have some moral obligation to respond to every humanitarian crisis in the world.

With that said, humanitarian crises where the aggressors are muslim seems like a good excuse to kick the asses of past/current/future terrorists. Like we did in the Balkans. Oh wait...we supported the muslims in Kosovo. That didn't turn out too well...

http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/crucified/default.htm

http://www.kosovo.net/map3.jpg

That's why they love us. We're always trying to do the right thing with regard to the 'Religion of Peace'.

"There are a lot of little fires in this crazy World of ours and we can't be expected to put them all out."

I agree. My question concerns the world's infernos. 300,000 killed, and 1,500,000 exiled to the Sahara isn't a little fire in my estimation.

Ralph,

Doesn't your entire question hinge on whether a "nation" or a nation's government (the difference is actually very important) can have moral obligations at all for other nations beyond those imposed by the natural law regarding just war doctrine?

For example, when the Irish were starving in the mid 1800's did the U.S. government have a moral obligation to send ships of foodstuffs? Did the American people (i.e. the nation) have such a moral obligation?

I believe that the answer is no. I think that a nation's government is tasked w/ serving the common good of its citizens only and thatthis is in accord w/ natural law.

I think any attempt to define international moral obligations at a collective level to be very problematic beyond the natural law restraints on a governments use of force.

Collectivist moral theory is pretty clearly problematic, and despite its seeming accord w/ our desires and empathies for people in other places who suffer I think it is a untenable projection of one's own personal moral responsibilities on the collective.

"I have a moral obligation to intervene if I see an innocent being assaulted on the street; therefore, my govt or my nation collectively must do the same in Darfur." I don't think we can easily jump from that individual moral duty to one for a collective, there are many unexamined presumptions being made that make the two scenarios unequivalent (they are different in kind not just scale). For one, this presumes that the collective can do for Darfur what we imagine we can do for the stranger being assualted on the street.

It is a very humane and Christian impulse though.

Ralph,

Also, I don't think your historical counterfactual about France's interventionism on our behalf during the War of Independence is relevant.

First, it is a historical counterfactual and that really is enough of a rebuttal. That is, it is impossible to treat as a fact American losing the war w/o France's intervention, irregardless of how "certain" we can feel in our gut about the outcome.

Second, while it an interesting point in terms of irony it still doesn't rise to the level of your argument b/c it doesn't address the correctness or incorrectness of the principle being defended (non-intervention). Here is an example to illustrate what I mean: "John's mother had a one night stand when she was 17 and became pregnant w/ him, but John believes that it was wrong for her to have premarital sex." So does the fact that if John's mother hadn't done what he considers wrong (and thus did what he considers morally right) then he wouldn't have been born invalidate the principle John defends? Of course not. Not in the least it is a hopeless irony but an unserious one (to paraphrase Steve Sailer). Neither does France's intervention on America's behalf.

*******
By the way, you really shouldn't throw out the word "isolate" like that it is a careless insult of JQA's stance w/o making your argument. Non-interventionism is not equatable to isolationism unless the only way a country can be "un-isolated" from others is by attacking them, which is clearly preposterous.

Bruce,

You make a good point. I would be interested to know the relationship between the moral obligations of the aggregate of citizens and the obligations of the collective. I also wonder whether an individual can be obligated to oppose a foreign government (in addition to an obligation to the obligation to aid those who suffer, e.g., with food).

It is not obvious to me that the moral obligations of the aggregate do not translate into obligations of the collective. Where is this question discussed?

The Irish famine problem that Bruce Wayne brings up should be explored further. The individual Americans and the American governments may have had no moral obligation to feed the starving people of Ireland, but it would have still been a good thing to do. It would have been the charitable thing to do. There are things outside our obligation systems which are still desirable. And if the community decides that such things should be done and correctly concludes that governmental action, and not individual action, is the proper instrument, then governmental action is appropriate.

I think J.Q. Adams' reference to the, then, current condition of Europe gives context to his remarks. As long as Europe was powerful and disputatious, help by words and example alone was the wisest course. That is, we could not afford to be excessively charitable. When those conditions changed J. Q. Adams would likely have reconsidered the appropriate extent of our charity to others.

1) Charity through taxation isn't charity.

2) You seem to have been moved by a peice of sentimental liberal journalism. I don't doubt that it is terrible and evil over there, but I still wonder whether in the long run interfering would be good or bad. What do you think of Somalia?

3) "As long as Europe was powerful and disputatious, help by words and example alone was the wisest course." DocMcG

So what are we to say about the ME-Arab-Muslim armpit of the world? They are more disputatious than Europe in JQA's day, and though less geopolitically powerful more dangerous in some sense. Moreover, the culture is what counts most here, and the culture of the ME-Arab-Muslim countries renders it practically unthinkable that investment of US dollars and lives would bring a return, to them or to us.

4) "When those conditions changed J. Q. Adams would likely have reconsidered the appropriate extent of our charity to others." DocMcG

Projection.

uberfrau,

I will refrain from taking up your invitation to apply Adams' point to the present situation in Middle East because, as I have pointed out many times before, I think our presence there is an example of self-defense and not of simple charity. Charity was the rationalization offered to bring into the coalition those who didn't understand the nature of the threat we face.

I was only pointing out the theoretical possibilities in Adams' quote and Bruce Wayne's application of it to nineteenth-century Ireland.

Charity imposed on others through taxation is not charity, but collective actions to help others accepted freely by a free people, through their representatives, is. Aquinas puts his discussion of peace and war under the general topic of "Charity." And he says there "Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): 'Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner'; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): 'The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.'"

Before joining the charity discussion, I'd like to get everyone's opinion on the moral obligation question. If each individual in a community has the same moral obligation, does the community also have that moral obligation? If not, why not? And where is this question discussed in the classical literature?

Ralph's question is key and I originally wanted to join this thread because I am interested in it, too. But, it was such a hard question, I got distracted. My guess is that it is addressed in the literature through discussions of the authority of the state and in the discussion of social contract theory.

I'll make a stab at beginning an answer.

If all the individuals share an obligation, the community might not have that obligation because the individuals have determined that individual action is more efficacious and have not assigned the authority to act to any agent of the community. Alternatively, the community might not have the obligation because the individuals have not been given the authority to delegate their obligations.

We might all have an obligation to pray to God. But we cannot assign the resultant authority to pray to others. We might all have an obligation to feed the hungry, but in many communities this may be accomplished best by individual action and not delegating someone to feed others for us so the authority to do it is not delegated, though, unlike the authority to pray, it could be delegated by the individuals.

The problem is that social contract theory is inadequate because it omits the facts that 1) individuals have some powers delegated from God that they are not authorized to redelegate and 2) that communities have power independent from that delegated by individuals, powers delegated directly from God to the community. So, while no individual might have the authority to kill a serial killer, the state has that authority.

Moderns have tried to recreate a decent vision of authority without bringing God in, and have made a mess of it.

I think a place to start might be an essay from about 1930 by Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J. "The Moral Origin of Civil Authority."

Ralph and Doc,

I am glad you two are taking up my concern. Making the argument of a moral duty of the collective to intervene in foreign wars entails getting the relationship btw. the individual and the collective right, in order to avoid a composition fallacy.

I can't immediately call to mind classical sources to go to on this issue. Possibly in the Ethics one can look at the book on justice and the kinds of justice which are the obligation of the state to serve. Likewise in the politics. But w/ Aristotle I am always struck by the passage (can't give ref as I don't have it handy) where he looks at what things our proper objects of deliberation. He says there something to the effect of "We do not deliberate over the form of government of Sparta;" and he treats this as just manifestly obvious. The idea is that we may discuss the affairs and regime of Sparta all we want but it is not a matter of deliberation b/c it is not a matter of "choice" to us. So I take that as a call (but not necessarily an argument) for non-interventionism. So applied to our main example if the people we term "Rwandans" are engaged in civil war over what the nature of their regime should be we have no deliberate role to play in the mess.

We definitely need to bring the scholastics into play as well, b/c as I noted above it is an admirable Christian impulse to try and help that you have Ralph, and I share it. But translating it into an obligation of the collective is a tricky issue. That is why I picked the Irish famine as a good test case for the principles involved b/c it is less dramatic in terms of what would be needed to intervene (sending ships full of corn as opposed to military occupation).

Doc brings up a good compromise point and that is to turn the matter to one of political procedure. I certainly wouldn't have a theoretical problem w/ a constitutional means of some particular intervention, where the will of the People is translated into some Congressional action (tax receipts to provide corn for the starving Irish; or intervention in Rwanda). But this does avoid the deeper issue of discerning the parameters of obligation of the collective in such matters.

On a related note I do believe that a common problem of the modern attempt to supplant some form of utilitarianism for Christian ethics/natural law is the belief that the moral obligations of the individual can be shunted over to the collective. A book or two has ben written demonstrating how little charity (in both time and money) is given by political liberals, and how conservatives blow them out of the water. This is b/c the Christian understands that we are directly and individually tasked (at peril of our souls) to feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc. So no matter what the collective does we cannot give over our moral *obligations* to another even though some may be partially fulfilled through others as Doc mentions.