The moral point of view is not restricted to philosophers. It is commonly applied by ecologists: "the ecolate view" (Garret Hardin) and "thinking like a mountain" (Aldo Leopold). It is the approach of successful marriage counselors and diplomatic negotiators, and it is implicit in the golden rule which is found in all the great world religions.
Numerous moral, political and economic puzzles, unsolvable from the point of view of the self-serving "utility maximizing" individual or nation, are readily solvable from the moral point of view. Among these puzzles are the tragedy of the commons, the prisoners' dilemma, the Hobbesian state of nature, and market failure ("negative externalities"). (For an elaboration, see my "The Moral Point of View").
Perhaps the dangerous new cold war between Russia and the United States/NATO might also be disengaged through negotiation from the moral point of view. We will explore this possibility shortly.
To be sure, some international conflicts are not negotiable: not if one of the contesting powers has no use for compromise and is dead-set upon conquest and mayhem, whatever the cost. Clearly, Napoleon and Hitler are cases in point. The western neo-cons and much of the corporate American media would have us believe that Vladimir Putin belongs to this category. Even Hillary Clinton has compared Vladimir Putin to Hitler. It's that serious.
Quite frankly, I am not persuaded that Putin is another Hitler. This dire accusation requires evidence, and I find little evidence to support it. Absent such evidence, perhaps the moral point of view is worth a try.
My hypothetical critic responds: "What are you, some kind of traitor? Who's side are you on? The side of America and its allies, or the side of the Putin and the Russians?"
My reply: I reject this zero-sum paradigm. In other words, like Marty the saintly Martian, I am on the "side" of humanity, which encompasses both American and Russian interests. The single-minded determination of each side to prevail over the other is a dead-end path, threatening ruin for all at the end of that path.
Both "sides" of the new cold war share common interests, and it is these common interests that must capture our attention if we are to escape from the trap of the zero-sum perspective on the new cold war
Negotiation requires concessions, and if the revived cold war is to be peacefully resolved, there will be costs to both sides. Among these costs: senior military officers must sacrifice their promotions, and media empires must find other means to maintain their audiences. And the mighty military-industrial complex might have to devote its formidable engineering talents to other urgent tasks, such as high-speed railroads, carbon capture and green energy.
These costs will be trivial compared to the enormous benefits of ending the cold war.
TIT FOR TAT: THE BENIGN CIRCLE.
An arms race is typically and correctly described as a "vicious circle." One side introduces an advanced weapons system, and the other responds and raises the ante with a breakthrough of its own. A provocation elicits a response which in turn brings on a counter-response. Military budgets soar, each side citing the "threat" allegedly posed by the other as justification for further escalations , while domestic priorities are neglected. As the late economist, Kenneth Boulding put it, in the first Cold War, the American and Soviet military establishments were, in effect, symbiotic allies at war with their respective civilian economies.
Thus the escalation continues until war breaks out; more likely than not, due to accident, blunder or miscalculation. The first Cold War ended peacefully, at least for a brief historical moment. There is little reason to assume that we will all be as fortunate with this renewed Cold War.
Though little noticed by our politicians and media, there is positive polar-opposite to a "vicious circle:" a "benign circle," which we might call "tit-for-tat de-escalation." It could be a path out of the deadly Cold War trap now threatening the peace of the world. It could be, but for the venomous propaganda on both sides which make peaceful resolution ever more difficult. Witness that scorn heaped upon Donald Trump and his defenders, as they even dare suggest that we might "get along" with the Russians. (I'll have more to say about this in my next essay, "Vladimir Putin as Emmanuel Goldstein." Those familiar with George Orwell's 1984 will understand the reference).
"Tit for tat" is the name given to "benign-circle conflict resolution" by Robert Axelrod, in his book The Evolution of Cooperation (Basic books, 1984). Following an extensive investigation, featuring computer simulations, Axelrod concluded that the most effective method of conflict resolution is through reciprocating "good faith" concessions. The process continues until one side "defects" (i.e., does not respond, or still worse, takes advantage of the other side's concession). The process can survive occasional defections, but if they become numerous, then, as one side realizes that it is being "suckered," it withdraws and the negotiation ends.
Could the US/NATO alliance and the Russian Federation arrive at a peaceful conflict resolution through "tit for tat" negotiation? Possibly. But only if it begins in secret. The poisonous propaganda heard on both sides makes open and public negotiation impossible. During the first Cold War, we often heard that "if you yield an inch to the Soviets, they will try to take a mile." With such an attitude, de-escalation is doomed at the start.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
