To be or not to be

[Preety_India]

Okay I have a question. Let's say you're told to lead a state. And you have a book of laws and amends. 

There is a certain law, rule, principle you follow while running this state. 

What if I told you that if you were to lead this state by survival, you might have to give up principle. 

And if you were to lead this state by principle, you might have to put the survival of the state at risk. 

Now you're told to pick one of the two - Survival or Principle!

As a leader which one would you choose and why? 

 

[Opo]

People who say that they would pick principles don't have their survival on the line. 

[Parththakkar12]

It would be a very complicated, case-by-case decision. I'd have to go with my gut on every decision. It depends on the complex ego-dynamics and what's in the highest good of all parties in the specific situation.

[JosephKnecht]

Quote

To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,

No more; and by a sleep to say we end

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause—there's the respect

That makes calamity of so long life.

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,

Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,

The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,

The insolence of office, and the spurns

That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,

When he himself might his quietus make

With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,

To grunt and sweat under a weary life,

But that the dread of something after death,

The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn

No traveller returns, puzzles the will,

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of?

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,

And enterprises of great pitch and moment

With this regard their currents turn awry

And lose the name of action.

 - BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

 

[Carl-Richard]

Principle is survival.

[DocWatts]

A real world example of the Thought Experiment you brought up exists through something known as 'Finlandization'. What it refers to is a smaller nation having to sacrifice some of its sovereignty to avoid being swallowed up by larger, more powerful neighbor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

Typically this takes the form of a conscious effort on the part of the disadvantaged nation to make itself indispensable in some way to the nation that's threatening it, and thereby make the loss of said benefits more costly than what would be gained if the domineering power were to take over its weaker neighbor.

Typically this involves economic and/or foreign policy concessions, and can involve a curtailment of Democratic freedoms such as freedom of the press. As such, nations who go down this path tend to do so because it's the least harmful path available to it at the time, and as such I wouldn't say thay they're wrong for doing so, when you consider that the alternatives are far worse.

If you're interested in the subject, Jared Diamond writes a really compelling account of the precarious situation that Finland found itself in during the Cold War in his most recent book, 'Upheavel'. The fact that they came out of it in one piece with Democracy still in tact, rather than becoming a Soviet puppet state, makes the concessions they had to make at the time worth it.

 

[Preety_India]

@DocWatts I framed the question around this example but I didn't want to give a real example, because I thought it would be controversial for the forum. 

 

[Preety_India]

@DocWatts ok I'll ask you this. 

Let's say you're living in a small country. Just hypothetical example. So you have a small group of immigrants who have somehow landed in your country. Now they're extremely successful and they are so competent that they can outdo the whole population of your country. They can basically take over, both money wise and health wise. Now your population is not able to compete with these people due to many reasons like health or whatever, lack of skill. And you can clearly see the dangers of these people growing in size and how they could take up the entire space and basically make everyone lose their survival by getting all the resources to themselves and competing really hard against you. The winner takes it all and they're the winner. Now you're the head of this country and you want to protect the survival of your people. You are thinking the only option is to threaten this group into oblivion and make them disappear somehow or put them in an Existential threat by marginalizing and constantly delegitimizing their rights so they are constantly harassed and don't get to succeed. Their resources are purposefully taken away and they are made to suffer so their progress is unlikely. 

But now you're posed with the question. That your state was created on the principle of liberty and Equality for all, so none should be treated worse than another. So by principle you aren't allowed to treat this group unfairly since the principle says fair treatment of all, superior or inferior. Hence you can't treat them badly just because they are superior to the rest of the population. Now you're confused. Because if you treat them badly and take away their basic rights, you are probably going against the rule of law of "fair treatment of all".. However if you obeyed the principle and did nothing vicious to this group, they will succeed and others of your population will fail and thus lose their survival. 

So you're caught between following principle or ensuring survival. The death or extermination of this group would mean survival of your population although such extermination would be against your core principles whereas giving freedom and equal rights to all, no extermination would mean your survival in threat. 

So my question is how do you navigate this scenario between survival and principle. 

( I didn't want to put this  example in the opening post because I thought it would be too controversial.) 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Preety_India

[DocWatts]

From the example you mention, it ends up reading as if from the perspective of how someone at an ethno-centric (or Blue) stage of development would frame the issue of Immigration, where the person in question sees the world as groups fighting against groups, and prosperity for some means deprivation for others. In fact, this is very similar to how successful minority communities have been demonized in ethno-centric Cultures across a wide range of countries, with successful Jewish communities being the most obvious example here. People at an ethno-centric stage of development become threatened when they see a community of Outsiders doing well (due to the minority group's Cultural Values and sense of Community that help them to succeed despite the obstacles placed in their way). This often gets misconstrued as Foul Play and the group in question becomes resented by the Dominant group.

But as for the broader principle between Survival and sticking to one's Principles, well there's a lot to unpack there. Your answer will probably depend on how your frame the issue of Justice. For my part, I see public policy decisions through a Harm Reduction perspective, I would have to rank your proposed choices in the following order

( # 1 ) Survival of the entire society as a starting place, pretty much a non-negotiable (assuming the society in question is worth saving; not every society is, and the answer to this will vary depending on who's perspective you're taking. A slave living in the Antebellum South would not see the Confederacy as worth saving, while a white slaveholder likely would).
( # 2 ) Application of First Principles such as justice, fairness, equality of opportunity etc.

Societal collapse is an ugly thing that causes a great deal of harm, and there are very few situations where that will be preferable to making the minimum level of sacrifice to one's Principles that's needed to ensure the survival of a society. At the same time though the vast majority of challenges a nation will face are not Existential Threats, and it's very tempting to frame issues that way when it's not really warranted. Things that actually cause Societies to collapse tend to be systemic in nature, where any one cause is very rarely responsible on its own. In the example you mention, perhaps the Systemic issue is that the Political and Socio-Economic Systems are vulnerable to a small Elite who are able to monopolize power and impose its will on the majority. Or it could be that the Immigration issue you mention is indicative of another country imposing its will on the nation in question, and forcing it to take in more immigrants than it can reasonably assimilate into its society. Perhaps there's a lack of a Social Safety net, so that people who end up the socio-economic Losers are driven in to desperate circumstances.

Edited November 27, 2020 by DocWatts

[Preety_India]

 

15 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

From the example you mention, it ends up reading as if from the perspective of how someone at an ethno-centric (or Blue) stage of development would frame the issue of Immigration, where the person in question sees the world as groups fighting against groups, and prosperity for some means deprivation for others. In fact, this is very similar to how successful minority communities have been demonized in ethno-centric Cultures across a wide range of countries, with successful Jewish communities being the most obvious example here.

Since I'm at stage Green so I don't believe in seeing immigration as a threat. In fact like stage Green people I think people should give up nationalism and get rid of ethnocentrism philosophy. 

But for the sake of this thread I tried to empathize with Stage Blue people who would think this way that immigrants are a huge problem and even if I don't agree with their ethnocentric thoughts but I will at least need to have an understanding of how they think. So if I imagine myself sitting with a stage Blue nationalist they probably might bring up the survival issue and blame immigrants for it. In this context the thought that came to my mind was that stage blue societies also have strong moral principles at the top to run the system so I was thinking to myself how are Stage Blue nationalists going to find a middle ground between their constitutional principles and survival of its people whereby they really look at immigration as a huge threat. 

Example in point - Republicans in the United States who constantly talk about immigration in negative ways. So I tried putting myself in their shoes and I can see why they would think immigration as a threat since they have this strong ethnic identity. But I wasn't able to come up with a solution or argument I could put forward to such Republicans 

 

15 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

 

 

People at an ethno-centric stage of development become threatened when they see a community of Outsiders doing well (due to the minority group's Cultural Values and sense of Community that help them to succeed despite the obstacles placed in their way). This often gets misconstrued as Foul Play and the group in question becomes resented by the Dominant group.

Yes very much like in the US and Europe and in many other countries as well 

 

 

15 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

If Immigration does in actuality end up threatening the stability of the Society, I suspect it highly likely that there are other Systemic Issues at play. A well functioning socio-economic and pollical system with a sustainable Immigration policy doesn't take in way more people than it can reasonably assimilate.

Good point. 

15 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

But as for the broader principle between Survival and sticking to one's Principles, well there's a lot to unpack there. Your answer will probably depend on how your frame the issue of Justice. For my part, I see public policy decisions through a Harm Reduction perspective, I would have to rank your proposed choices in the following order

( # 1 ) Survival of the entire society as a starting place, pretty much a non-negotiable (assuming the society in question is worth saving; not every society is).
( # 2 ) Application of First Principles such as justice, fairness, equality of opportunity etc.

This really solves the problem. That's how a stage Blue system can tackle the issue if they're conflicted about principle versus survival. 

15 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

 

Societal collapse is an ugly thing that causes a great deal of harm, and there are very few situations where that will be preferable to making the minimum level of sacrifice to one's Principles that's needed to ensure the survival of a society. At the same time though the vast majority of challenges a nation will face are not Existential Threats, and it's very tempting to frame issues that way when it's not really warranted. Things that actually cause Societies to collapse tend to be systemic in nature, where any one cause is very rarely responsible on its own. In the example you mention, perhaps the Systemic issue is that the Governmental and Political Systems are prone to a small Elite who are able to monopolize power and impose its will on the majority. 

Good point 

 

15 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Or it could be that the Immigration issue you mention is indicative of another country imposing its will on the nation in question, and forcing it to take in more immigrants than it can reasonably assimilate into its society. Perhaps there's a lack of a Social Safety net, so that people who end up the socio-economic Losers are driven in to desperate circumstances.

Yea really good point when. When a country is not well established or designed they will easily find ways to find fault where there is none. It's the scarcity mindset of the stage Blue. 

Btw the scarcity mindset is very common in Stage BLUE countries where If the government fails to provide a social safety net then its the fault of the public.. 

15 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

There's a whole lot more to unpack here, but I do think your answer will probably be heavily influenced by what theory of Justice you happen to subscribe to. But that's another long and interesting discussion that could take up a whole thread 

Thank you 

Your input pretty much answered my question already. 

 

[DocWatts]

As a side note, I do recognize the political situation / country that you're likely alluding to in your example (the way you framed it seemed like it was meant to evoke Israeli immigration into Palestine and the displacement of the people living there, but correct me if I'm wrong here). If so, what happened there was due to fairly unique Circumstances that are a bit harder to generalize, I would argue. But that's such a complicated and loaded topic that it could probably take up a whole Thread all on its own 

Edited November 27, 2020 by DocWatts

[Preety_India]

5 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

As a side note, I do recognize the political situation / country that you're likely alluding to in your example, but what happened there was due to fairly unique Circumstances that are a bit harder to generalize, I would argue. But that's such a complicated and loaded topic that it could probably take up a whole Thread all on its own 

I'm actually alluding to US. Yea I agree with you. It's far more complex. 

 

[DocWatts]

2 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I'm actually alluding to US. Yea I agree with you. It's far more complex. 

Fair enough, I'll redact my previous assumption about the socio-political context I had assumed you were trying to evoke then 

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, DocWatts said:

Fair enough, I'll redact my previous assumption about the socio-political context I had assumed you were trying to evoke then 

Yeah. 

[Preety_India]

@DocWatts but it was still a good example.. I don't have much knowledge about Europe so it was kinda refreshing to know more about these countries