according to classical theories of morality where what is good for ones fellow man is moral and what harms ones fellow man is immoral...wouldnt economic/aid sanctions imposed by nations on other nations be immoral simply because they harm the people of that nation by causing famine, suffering, inability to treat disease, etc... because aid or help is being taken away. Like the united nations exists to keep world order and peace and exists for the benefit of all mankind but ur feeding a hungry person (that is aid) then u impose sanctions. So ur basically taking the food out of his mouth and saying "no more food for u until ur government changes"
and this is in a dictatorship where the person has no control over what his government is doing and cannot help change it

discuss

What do you mean by 'classical theories of morality'? There's a LOT of classical theories - deontological, utilitarian, aristotelian, stoic, epicurean.........

They are all VERY different.

well i explained it. moral being "good for your fellow man" and immoral being "bad for your fellow man"

Subjective values straight out of the little red book. Just who is to define what is good and bad?

Who in their right mind can even pretend to have the wisdom to judge that?

What kind of narcisstic ego-driven asshole would have the stupidity and the audacity to claim to know what is good or bad for their fellow man, outside of the standards typically followed by most civilizations with strictures against Murder, Theft, Adultury, Rape, and the commendation of those that work hard, are frugal and save, there are no standards that need apply.

What kind of mental midget would attempt to argue for Marx's Dialectic Materialism, when the end results are evident through the repeated destruction of any civilization that pursued Socialist Policies?

Athens
Rome (both the Republic and the Empire)
Eastern Europe
Russia
China
Germany

Socialism, despite all its hollow rhetoric aimed at inflaming the sheep towards attempting to seize more of the pie with out earning it, is an ideology that has demonstrated an amazing ability to fail. It has failed repeatedly, it has been directly responsible for over 100 Million deaths. To argue that people should be entitled to commit thievery isn't the argument of a sane rational human being, but the argument of an immature, irrational sociopath.

To argue that life should be fair is not the argument of some one that believes in themselves, and believes in pursuing success, it is the argument of some one that is a failure, and has surrendered all hope, because the real world is too tough for them.

Socialism is the ideology of those that lack fortitude, integrity, perseverence and a desire to earn their own bread. It is an ideology for sheep, not men. It is an ideology that can best be described as worshipping death, as only in death does its ideas actual come to fruition about everyone being equally impoverished, and equally stripped of liberty, freedom and life.

Socialism is an ideology of mass enslavement, and its idealogues should reflect on what the founders said about those that were enslaved, that because of their enslavement they were deprived of 2/5ths of what made them men, namely liberty and self-responsibility. If you so wish to be a sycophant begging for scraps from the table of the bureaucrats that you enshrine as gods then that is your business, but to have the audacity, and childish belief that you have the right to demand that others adhere to your nation-destroying ideology is the mark of a sociopath. Only a sociopath would demand that others reject freedom and liberty. Only a sociopath would demand that others reject the benefits that they draw through the fruits of their labors. Only a sociopath could possibly believe that those that contribute nothing to society should be able to demand that they get to share in the rewards society gathers for itself. Only a sociopath would fail to understand that an ideology that enshrines bureaucrats will be worse than any system that grants liberty and freedom to the many, and believe that their ideology would some how result in the non-existence of classes.

Even in Stalinist Russia, and Imperial Rome there were still classes. Even in China under Mao their were still classes, the difference between those societies and the capitalist societies of the west was that to escape from poverty one had to be an ass-kissing sycophant that did nothing more than kneel before the bureacrats.

One can only reflect on the differences evident between Capitalism and Socialism and think about the scene in the movie 300 when Darius says that he is a kind master and only requires that the deformed traitor kneel. Socialism is that kind of master, it only requires that its adherents kneel before their chosen masters and accept scraps from their table.

Capitalism demands that men stand proud, and upright, and face the world with courage on their own two feet.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

As far as economic sanctions on nations that violate international laws and threaten their neighbors. Perhaps those sanctions will spur the people to stand up for themselves and demand accountability from their leaders.

Perhaps those sanctions will inspire people to look at their government and wonder why the world hates their government so much.

Sanctions are a step above War in their execution, as war is the last resort, and is infinitely more destructive.

Besides, even if the US and its allies don't sell to those nations there are still plenty of nations that will sell to those nations.

About the only thing that I can object to is the fact that sanctions violate the right of merchants and traders to enter into contracts with whomever they want and thus violate liberties and freedoms.

The right to sell to whoever one wants, at whatever price the market will bare should not be infringed by the government.

Of course that does little to address the barbarous acts committed by the nations under sanction. Why should the rest of the world feel obligated to help those that refuse to help themselves by standing on their own two feet and demanding accountability from their governments?

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

some countries have such oppressive governments that they cant do anything short of civil war. stop trying to make it all complicated. it was just a simple question i was wondering. i for one couldnt care less about politics or the world and such but i just wanted to know

Well yeah in some cases they really need help, like in the 90s when Bosnia was involved in some brutal shit, I mean the military would have rolled over anyone standing in their way. But I agree with brutal that every nation shouldnt be babysat, when you look around and see you have nothing left to lose you have a total revolt. I know saying it is the easy part, actually putting your life on the line for it is another matter. Sanctions are a 1st step of this babysitting process, so I dont get too far off the intended topic.

__________________
They may take our lights, but they will never take our freesun!

It is immoral to collect aid, foreign or domestic through the force of government. Aid must be voluntarily given or any association with morality is lost.

In the context of "no control over what his government is doing" that could be applied anywhere government exists, more so when the UNITED NATIONS is involved.

It is a good thing to help others, governments are not humanitarian....people are. You cannot force people to be humanitarian, or force them to donate to humanitarian causes and remain moral, that is inconsistent with the concept, no matter how altruistic the cause.

Who places the embargo there in the first place? Who enforces these embargoes? If you try to help somebody in a "bad country" and your government won't permit you to, who is immoral, you or your government?

Helping others should be a personal choice. The role of government should be limited to ensuring that another person isn't harming another. When governments prevent you from excercising free will and helping somebody else they are being immoral.

Governments have no moral authority to enforce embargoes, they have only force.

in a relatively free democratic society like the usa and western europe, thel ittle things like aid to countries during hard times is a topic we CAN control and should or should not fight for. if we fight for sanctions against iran or northkorea over their nuclear program or we sit around and not do not rise up as a people and convince our elected leaders not, then by not rising up we are "letting harm happen". at least thats the type of morality "my mom taught me." tho im a vulgar hedonist now

Yes, but in the case of N. Korea and Iran you have regimes that have routinely threatened their neighbors and in general act like macro-sociopaths on the world state. You have leaders that do not care for the good of the people.

The first step to transforming those nations is to empower their citizens, unfortunately, the easiest way to do that is with information, which those nations routinely block, censor, or lie about. To offer aide to the citizens of a rogue regime does not do anything to improve their lots in the long run, it just makes it that much easier for their governments to continue to collect high taxes that are then used to further oppress their own citizens.

While it feels good, it is not the best course of action, because it does not really amount to anything in the long run. I can also not condone the United States intervening in the politics of another nation, because that is directly contradictory to the powers given to the Federal Government under the Constitution.

Give a man a fish and you make him a slave to your "altruism" , teach a man to fish and you set him free to stand on his own two feet. The only way to teach the citizens of nations like Iran and North Korea to fish is to empower them to strike for their own freedom, or make it so that they desire to do so.

While I disagree with government regulation of any kind of commerce, I can see how in some cases (N. Korea, and Iran) just blindly letting corporations buy and sell in those nations ignores the greater fact that they are in general belligerent and disrespectful towards their neighbors.

A simpler way to look at it is to look at those nations as people, if you saw a drunk that was threatening to kill your neighbor would you be very inclined to help them? Or would you ignore them, and hope that they succumbed to their drinking?

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis