political will/duty?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » political will/duty? » political will/duty?

political will/duty?
does it exist and ough it to?

political will/duty?

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 881

Posted 10/30/06 - 06:34 AM: Subject: political will/duty?	#1
Such issues as climate/Co2 emmisions and world poverty exist, but what duty is it on individual politicians to act, or on individual nations to act? For example, if the tax is raised (on car/[plane use) when the tories come into government, what good will it do when China does not regulate Co2? Does the U.K have any right to tell China what to do? Promises have been made: but world poverty still exists, and thousands die each day. Some argue this is because of colonialisation etc., but when do we get to the point of saying "come on guys...you must do it yourself." Or do we have a duty to help our fellow man? If promises have been made, and it can be shown that the west has been a cause in the trouble in some areas of the world i think there might be a solid duty to act. However, even if there weren't, there is still the case to be made that IF we can do something to alleviate starvation then it should be done. Ignorance is not a get out. These are sticky and contentious areas, however i would appreciate some thoughts on the subject(s).
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 612

Posted 10/30/06 - 10:29 AM:	#2
I think politicans don't really care about climate change, their primary concern is to appear as if they are. This is because by the time climate change starts to affect them, they will be in old age or possibly dead. So political duty should be the duty of the public, the job of the politican should be it's mouthpiece. But political will is not as strong compared to the will of big corporations. And it looks like we are simply helpless in respect of climate change. We can't even save ourselves from ourselves. Edited by hypothesis on 10/30/06 - 12:27 PM
over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

Mperor
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 14, 2002
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 24

Posted 10/30/06 - 08:20 PM:	#3
hypothesis wrote: I think politicans don't really care about climate change, their primary concern is to appear as if they are. This is because by the time climate change starts to affect them, they will be in old age or possibly dead. So political duty should be the duty of the public, the job of the politican should be it's mouthpiece. But political will is not as strong compared to the will of big corporations. And it looks like we are simply helpless in respect of climate change. We can't even save ourselves from ourselves. Unless "we", get into the governments. We as the ones who care. But we most likely will upset all the war contractors. DANG! And the businesspeople who pollute!

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 881

Posted 10/31/06 - 02:47 AM:	#4
hypothesis wrote: So political duty should be the duty of the public, the job of the politican should be it's mouthpiece. But political will is not as strong compared to the will of big corporations. Again, i think there is a great deal to be said for this, and it comes down to the question of "how much freedom ought corporations to have?" If they are working only for profit and at the expense of individuals then they are harmful- what to do? And it looks like we are simply helpless in respect of climate change. We can't even save ourselves from ourselves. I think that responsibility ought to take place. For ourselves, but yeah, eggs can be thrown when there is apparent negligence.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can only come from nothing.

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 612

Posted 10/31/06 - 09:29 AM:	#5
litkey wrote: Again, i think there is a great deal to be said for this, and it comes down to the question of "how much freedom ought corporations to have?" If they are working only for profit and at the expense of individuals then they are harmful. You have to bear in mind that corporations are made of individuals. Environmental concern is clearly a direct conflict of interest with profit. I don't see how the government can really affect any corporation when it comes to redusing emmisions, when the relationship is reciprocal for both parties. But I think we are blaming government and corporations because, it's more convienent then putting the blame on ourselves.
over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2107

Posted 10/31/06 - 07:26 PM:	#6
I thought this was about political duty. Currently, sovereign nations are not supposed to have a right to dictate to other nations what they must do. Instead, they must resort to peaceful agreement or coercion by threat of force or economic sanctions. In a negotiation, you typcially line up pros/cons for each side of a debate and try to reach a solution that is mutually beneficial. I think political duty is to reach that solution as quickly and peacefully as possible, resorting to coercion only as a last resort for the most crucial of issues. You can use "game theory" to find the optimal strategy for a nation -- and that strategy becomes the nation's duty. So, the question you ask results in further questions. Does solving poverty in another country benefit your country? If America could eliminate poverty in Mexico, would the benefit of having a prosperous, stable, neighboring country outweigh the cost that such a task would take? It might be hard to see the future ramifications. It is easy to dismiss some remote country collapsing into anarchy as someone else's problem, but international relations and economics can affect neighboring countries. The environment is a little more clear. We all share the same thin atmosphere and oceans we border. If America continues emitting 1/4 of the world's CO2, which creates instability in the weather and global warming, it affects every country. If America refuses to negotiate, even in its own interest, then it ought to be the duty of every other country in the world to use coercion or accept the consequences of inaction. Right now, it isn't immediately urgent enough, but in the future the very survival of some nations may be involved. It is the duty of every nation to avoid future conflicts, if possible, as well as current problems. I don't hold much hope, though. I think there needs to be a lot of major disasters and desperation before people can't ignore the problems that won't go away. Look at the cold war -- it was in the best interest of every nation to eliminate the threat of a nuclear war, but nobody was willing to do so because they refused to acknowledge alternate solutions and could ignore and dismiss the phantom consequences of global nuclear war. We really haven't progressed from that point.
"There are only two industries that refer to their customers as 'users'." -- Edward Tufte

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 612

Posted 11/08/06 - 12:34 PM:	#7
swstephe wrote: The environment is a little more clear. We all share the same thin atmosphere and oceans we border. If America continues emitting 1/4 of the world's CO2, which creates instability in the weather and global warming, it affects every country. If America refuses to negotiate, even in its own interest, then it ought to be the duty of every other country in the world to use coercion or accept the consequences of inaction. Right now, it isn't immediately urgent enough, but in the future the very survival of some nations may be involved. It is the duty of every nation to avoid future conflicts, if possible, as well as current problems. Duty towards something does not always lead to action being taken to accomplish whatever needs accomplishing. I agree with the game theory, though, that duty turns into action only when the consequence of it provides benefits. The problem I think is that most governments (/people) seem to think short-term. This means that instant gratification takes priority over long term-wellbeing, as is shown by the climate change problem
over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.