4 ms·

The US actions after WWII in the peace negotiations weren't as altruistic as you are trying to make out. In fact it was a reaction to the disastrous result of t

The US actions after WWII in the peace negotiations weren't as altruistic as you are trying to make out. In fact it was a reaction to the disastrous result of the peace negotiations after WWI, which greatly contributed to WWII, and with the USSR being what it was and everyone building nukes they probably thought WWIII was not in their interest. Building up western Europe was a strong force against the USSR and a convenient buffer zone.

js8 10y ago
Are you saying that if altruism (helping others) is a rational thing to do, then it's not really altruism? I find that argument a little strange.
- maxvu 10y ago
  Altruism isn't "helping others", it's "helping others for others' sake". Other motivations muddy the selflessness.
  - js8 10y ago
    But isn't that the case here? US didn't expect anything in return other than side effects of Europe being stronger (which was an advantage for them as well).
    - saiya-jin 10y ago
      to enforce future battlefield so war could potentially be fought only far, far away and enemy would weaken itself, and US would benefit in similar fashion as from WWII... I am sure there were many aspects considered for Marshall plan, some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish.
      - lambdadmitry 10y ago
        >some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish This is a zero-sum mentality in a sense. There are deals that benefit both sides, so there is no sense in selfish/altruistic dichotomy. One can be both "selfish" and "good" by pursuing positive-sum deals.
  - lambdadmitry 10y ago
    I believe most people don't assume that US (or other country, for that matter) is "truly altruistic" in your definition. However, the US is the first world power to make positive-sum policies the basis of its foreign relations (starting from the Marshall Plan onwards). You are right that this is not "selflessness", but positive-sum is even better as it is a sustainable approach.

js8 10y ago

Are you saying that if altruism (helping others) is a rational thing to do, then it's not really altruism? I find that argument a little strange.

maxvu 10y ago
Altruism isn't "helping others", it's "helping others for others' sake". Other motivations muddy the selflessness.
- js8 10y ago
  But isn't that the case here? US didn't expect anything in return other than side effects of Europe being stronger (which was an advantage for them as well).
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    to enforce future battlefield so war could potentially be fought only far, far away and enemy would weaken itself, and US would benefit in similar fashion as from WWII... I am sure there were many aspects considered for Marshall plan, some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish.
    - lambdadmitry 10y ago
      >some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish This is a zero-sum mentality in a sense. There are deals that benefit both sides, so there is no sense in selfish/altruistic dichotomy. One can be both "selfish" and "good" by pursuing positive-sum deals.
- lambdadmitry 10y ago
  I believe most people don't assume that US (or other country, for that matter) is "truly altruistic" in your definition. However, the US is the first world power to make positive-sum policies the basis of its foreign relations (starting from the Marshall Plan onwards). You are right that this is not "selflessness", but positive-sum is even better as it is a sustainable approach.