3 ms·

This view seems utterly at odds with what I've read of history. The individuals making the decisions about the actions of states take action for moral reasons

This view seems utterly at odds with what I've read of history. The individuals making the decisions about the actions of states take action for moral reasons all the time. Look at, I don't know, all the wars the UK got into in the 19th century through trying to stop the slave trade, half the decision making of the powers getting into World War I, the US's conspicuous failure to annex the territory it captured in WWII or countless other things. I certainly wouldn't say that any country is entirely selfless, that doesn't happen either. And there's a wide range of how different factors affect a country's balance between the two. But even Nazi Germany and Japan did things for racist, anti-communist, and (in Japan's case) anti-colonialist things at times that weren't in the interest of furthering the power of their states.

mikeash 10y ago
The US's good treatment of conquered territories following WWII set it up for the global hegemony it enjoys to this day. The Nazis and Japanese lost the war in a devastating fashion in part because they behaved so stupidly due to their ideology. I'm not too familiar with the UK's fight against slavery, but I'd wager that their enemies were the ones who suffered the most from shutting down the slave trade.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > I'd wager that their enemies were the ones who suffered the most from shutting down the slave trade. This is .. not a position supported by historical evidence, and in fact it was the UK which suffered (stopped benefiting from) the slave trade.