8 ms·
But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right?
by jmprspret 2y ago
But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right?
- BobbyJo 2y ago> But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? You are an individual and can only do one thing at a time. You can choose what you do with coin flips if you want, but I try to judge things. > Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right? It is necessary, but not sufficient. Other things are also necessary.
- anon291 2y agoBecause every action, including ones that are otherwise good, have a larger context in which we have to judge them?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Onavo 2y ago> But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right? It doesn't. Realist game theory ignores issues like morality. Unfortunately this forum is primarily liberal, in both the classical sense and the international relations sense, so you are going to be heavily down voted for questioning the status quo.
- BobbyJo 2y agoI don't think they are questioning the status quo tho. They are essentially asking "why be motivated by anything at all". Inevitably, you work in support of an economy, and therefore a nation, so at some point you have to choose which.