4 ms·
> This is why the UN exists and the LON before it Um, you do realize that the League of Nations was a failure? And that the UN, although at least it still exis
by pdonis 3y ago
> This is why the UN exists and the LON before it
Um, you do realize that the League of Nations was a failure? And that the UN, although at least it still exists (unlike the LON, which only lasted a decade or so), has not accomplished anything meaningful in terms of enforcing actual norms of behavior?
- tomrod 3y agoAre you kidding? UN has had tremendous impact in the world.
- pdonis 3y ago> UN has had tremendous impact in the world Perhaps, but if so, I think its impact is, at the very least, net negative, not net positive.
- tomrod 3y agoHeartily disagree. Having an avenue where nations can be shamed for their crimes against humanity as well as a central org that both announces common human rights and monitors for them is immensely useful on any normative ethics yardstick, whether utilitarian, essentialist, effective altruism, and so forth.
- pdonis 3y ago> Having an avenue where nations can be shamed for their crimes against humanity Many nations have continued to commit crimes against humanity since the UN was founded, without any shaming at all. Some of them have had their leaders praised and given awards and invited to be keynote speakers at conferences at the same time that their crimes against humanity were in full swing (for example, Robert Mugabe). And two of the most egregious such nations, Russia and China, have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. It is true that the UN has shamed some nations for crimes against humanity (the Milosevic regime in Serbia, for example). But that just makes the lack of shaming in so many other cases worse, especially when the cases that are ignored are at least as egregious as the cases that are shamed.
- stevofolife 3y agoThat's a wild statement to make about UN's unproductiveness in the history of its existence. I'd like some evidence please.
- pdonis 3y ago> I'd like some evidence please. Um, the state of the world today? Read the preamble of the UN charter and ask yourself how well the UN has actually done at moving the world in the direction of those things.
- vkou 3y agoThe fair point of comparison would be to contrast it with what the world would be like without it. And neither I, nor you can make such a contrast fairly. It immediately goes hard into speculative-fiction territory, and such an exercise would educate us about our own biases, more than we'd learn about the UN.
- PontifexMinimus 3y ago> the UN [...] has not accomplished anything meaningful in terms of enforcing actual norms of behavior That's because the UN isn't an actor in its own right, it is merely a forum through which countries can co-operate if they want to.
- withinboredom 3y agoDude. I was just listening to my taxi driver tell me about how the UN helped him escape from war at 14 and got him to this country (Norway) where he’s been able to have a decent life. I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> accomplished anything meaningful in terms of enforcing actual norms of behavior? Point being that the norm in question would be "not having the war".
- withinboredom 3y agoHasn't humanity been having at least one war since ... forever? I think the norm is war and what isn't normal are bullets and bombs that do far more collateral damage than "normal."
- robertlagrant 3y agoI agree, but I don't see how that's relevant to the idea that the UN has changed the culture of the world to end war.
- withinboredom 3y agoI don't think anyone here said that?
- pdonis 3y agoThe UN Charter does.
- withinboredom 3y agoSpeak softly and carry a big stick.