3 ms·

> If your primary motivation is not to improve the life of those within a country, you must keep out of their politics. I don't think this is a clear moral lin

> If your primary motivation is not to improve the life of those within a country, you must keep out of their politics. I don't think this is a clear moral line in international politics. If your primary motivation is to improve the life of those within your own country, it can be justifiable to get involved in another country's politics. And that's what is done. Ostensibly to prevent war, enhance regional stability, etc. Even just looking from Russia's perspective. If the world's leading country is so weak that a few phishing attacks can swing the election away from a less favorable candidate, is it really morally wrong to do that to benefit your people?

sgc 9y ago
There is a big difference between interfering, which is covertly affecting the outcome, and influencing via direct diplomacy or perhaps even clearly identified advertisements etc. I was referring to the first and not the second, and could have been clearer on that. There is no such thing as "a little phishing" in another election. It is the equivalent of calling something a little hand gesture without mentioning you shoved your hand into someone's vagina first. The autarky of self-governance is sacred, and should be respected as such. The modern world has completely lost its moral compass on these issues, and I have previously denounced harder lines by the EU and the US interfering in smaller countries elections / forcing laws down their throats (Eastern European and Balkan) countries). But as I alluded to in the beginning of this thread: Just because everyone's doing something does not make it right.
- moduspol 9y ago
  I think I see where you're coming from--I just think it's a little oversimplifying. Hillary Clinton was openly calling for a "no fly zone" in an area where Russian planes were flying. A "no fly zone" is a public declaration that you will shoot down planes that you don't think should be there. That could have started WW3, which is not in Russians' interests. But that's a bit of a stretch. Suppose she had openly advocated for war with Russia. Would it still be immoral for Russia to deceptively access and share with Wikileaks e-mails from her campaign and party to shift support away from her? Or are there truly no circumstances where one can morally interfere with another country's election?
  - sgc 9y ago
    It's basically an act of war, you are destroying their self-governance. So when war is moral (ie in defense of self or others against violent oppression / other autonomy destroying acts), there is a case to be made. But then you still need to justify your specific means - which is a direct attack on the Civilians of the country by taking away their apparent liberty without telling them that is the case. Obviously that view entails understanding lies as taking away others' liberty by denial of truth on which to base their decisions. The decision would be easier (but not easy) to make if their own government was deceiving them grossly, in which case your interference could bring more truth than it obscured. Any moral choice remains predicated on the lack of availability of better, more direct and honest methods. And of course these are practical decisions with all the obscurity and uncertainty they entail. Between the characteristic of an attack on civilians and the potential of actually bringing in more truth than is obscured if their own government is sowing lies, I first pointed to helping the citizens of the country as the only moral option. Without making a decision (I would have to think about it further), there might be drastic circumstances where there was no other viable course of action - but again within the context of acts of war and significant collateral damage.

sgc 9y ago

There is a big difference between interfering, which is covertly affecting the outcome, and influencing via direct diplomacy or perhaps even clearly identified advertisements etc. I was referring to the first and not the second, and could have been clearer on that. There is no such thing as "a little phishing" in another election. It is the equivalent of calling something a little hand gesture without mentioning you shoved your hand into someone's vagina first. The autarky of self-governance is sacred, and should be respected as such. The modern world has completely lost its moral compass on these issues, and I have previously denounced harder lines by the EU and the US interfering in smaller countries elections / forcing laws down their throats (Eastern European and Balkan) countries). But as I alluded to in the beginning of this thread: Just because everyone's doing something does not make it right.

moduspol 9y ago
I think I see where you're coming from--I just think it's a little oversimplifying. Hillary Clinton was openly calling for a "no fly zone" in an area where Russian planes were flying. A "no fly zone" is a public declaration that you will shoot down planes that you don't think should be there. That could have started WW3, which is not in Russians' interests. But that's a bit of a stretch. Suppose she had openly advocated for war with Russia. Would it still be immoral for Russia to deceptively access and share with Wikileaks e-mails from her campaign and party to shift support away from her? Or are there truly no circumstances where one can morally interfere with another country's election?
- sgc 9y ago
  It's basically an act of war, you are destroying their self-governance. So when war is moral (ie in defense of self or others against violent oppression / other autonomy destroying acts), there is a case to be made. But then you still need to justify your specific means - which is a direct attack on the Civilians of the country by taking away their apparent liberty without telling them that is the case. Obviously that view entails understanding lies as taking away others' liberty by denial of truth on which to base their decisions. The decision would be easier (but not easy) to make if their own government was deceiving them grossly, in which case your interference could bring more truth than it obscured. Any moral choice remains predicated on the lack of availability of better, more direct and honest methods. And of course these are practical decisions with all the obscurity and uncertainty they entail. Between the characteristic of an attack on civilians and the potential of actually bringing in more truth than is obscured if their own government is sowing lies, I first pointed to helping the citizens of the country as the only moral option. Without making a decision (I would have to think about it further), there might be drastic circumstances where there was no other viable course of action - but again within the context of acts of war and significant collateral damage.