What morality tells us about international politics.

he world does things differently then the U.S does. We see it in bathrooms, food, language, spirit, symbolism, architecture, and dialect. It’s not an unknown to us, that interpretation is a different straddle amongst the dawns of different countries, times, and eyes across the globe. It also explains the moral constraints that lead to how the world has treated human rights, independence, secularism, or social law.

What this investigation needs to do is cultivate an outline of moral structures, but in order to do that, the first piece of it needs to bring on the diagnosis.

The challenge that this begins with is going through what these differences result in.

The world wants to treat people better and make humanity one of growing peace and equality, but it can’t do that if there isn’t a diagnosis of where those lines are drawn.

  • The eastern hemisphere’s stained record on their treatment of minorities, from the likes of India and China- where the government contributes, or heavily limits protective input- to malicious treatment or jurisdiction, both of which are, and have the capacity to grow extensive reigns on greatened discrimination, common war, policy manipulation, civilian anger, differentiation, and an electorate that benefits from the pursuit of extreme measures to prove a point to the other side.
  • Russian intelligence and interference in global elections, giving them the opportunity to promote, lead, and design a global electorate to their benefit through cyber hacking, lobbying, international funding, and internally, stories of news control that force the government to have a tyrannical role in the daily lives of their citizens.
  • A civil war against a government- embodied, international proxy war, devastating those in Syria every day of their lives, the starving of children in Yemen, and locks on proper education distribution wreaking havoc on communities that are impoverished.
  • State governments across the Middle East, China, Russia, and North Korea, that are fighting for a representative, or identity-based ruling that creates struct laws based, not on the natural rights we are privileged as a society to muster, but based on power, a non-merited hierarchy, political power, the splitting of commonfolk, and military oversight. Places like India, Brazil, Venezuela, Hong Kong, or the Philippines all have faced or are showing growing signs of facing this growth in treatment.

Of course, if you live in America, these stories are not uncommon to see. Uncovered? Possibly. But not unheard. When we look at how people are treated in these circumstances, it’s not unheard for many of us to look at it with disdain, and some of us may even wonder if the people who commit these heinous crimes have the peace of mind in their lives to sleep at night, let alone give a smile of legitimacy, or be uplifting parents who can adust to the adaptations and responsibility parenthood brings to them.

The life lesson is that we can wonder, but acting upon them is a different story.

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one, and ego blinds us those who will defend their moral compass up to the last second of the splitting sound of their rifle undergoing an execution. Without defining where this problem is rooted, we can’t have that world I mentioned earlier.

But let’s circle back to the obstacle here at hand- there needs to be a diagnosis of this. That diagnosis needs to answer how the morals of our social structures got us here.

Coming up with that diagnosis is not an easy process- it’s a jumble of diving down into the tactical empathy that can get us to understand the opinion that strikes it, the physiological grounds it creates, and why there is a need for gain, so we’re diving down.

The beginning of changing morality is rooted in discrimination or the idea that there are discerning and masterful differences that need to be noticed and acted upon. In the case of humanity, discrimination is reflected int he actions of concentration camps, restrictions on voting rights, separating the human rights of individuals, and class structures that create double standards on the count of some people are better because of what they are born with. when it comes to morality, it’s the idea of ranking- and justifying actions based on ranking.

Discrimination is not inherently wrong- and before I get quoted out of context- what I mean is that the acting of discrimination is a daily decision-making driver in human life. The action of discrimination is natural- we discriminate when we choose to do what we deem right over wrong. We discriminate when we choose to eat one food over another. We discriminate when we choose government over anarchy. We discriminate when we turn on our lamp at night- primarily because we believe our eyesight is more important than the convenience of not turning the light on at night.

Discrimination also makes rules. It’s how the Supreme Court makes decisions, and it’s also the reason why minority opportunities get limited in unstable or coming unstable governments. There is an extent to which it is used, and when it comes to the mobility of the human race, it is both rational and utilitarian to discriminate based on merit and not on race, religion, sexuality, past, or physical conditions. However, these embodiments of moral reasoning aren’t present through countries around the globe, and it is instead rooted in human nature, because humans vote, and humans lead. That can’t change.

The humanity of discrimination based on identity is rooted under 2 things: fear, and weakness. When people are fearful, or they do not have the self or group confidence that they can survive in the battle of the fittest, they shift from a utilitarian or rationalistic moral wiring, because, as nature has it, many of us will think our identity, and protecting it is most important (because in doing so, we survive). One thing about morality is that it’s intuitive, and then rationality is what comes after. It’s why, when we mistreat minorities, the justification illegitimate grounds of purity, a distrust of what they will do, how it has always been, that they are not capable, or that the governing class needs to stay responsible because it should. These arguments are clearly not genuine. The reason why comes from data- of what is real and what is not.

There are 2 types of evidence: Direct and Circumstantial. Political decisions based off of emotion or reaction is often based on circumstantial, or looking at what happened around our accusations in order to come to a conclusion. It will occasionally work- when we can’t get access to direct evidence, such as the pursuit of criminal forces. It supports the accusation, but it, on its own, cannot suffice, and can thereby lead to immense danger. For example, if America is alerted that there is a Russian Missile that is at the height and position to hit Louisville, Kentucky, it would be circumstantial evidence that Russia intends to hit a U.S city and take lives. To most eyes, that’s what we will all think. But that’s not true evidence. What we DO know, is simply that there is a rocket with said trajectory. We do not know whether that was fired on accident, whether its path is set to divert to a testing field out in Lincoln, Nebraska, or if Russia is actively trying to hurt us. We can send response missiles back, but when we do, we find out that the missile dissolves, separates, and is non-nuclear, when it begins to land. As it turns out, Russia was testing a non-lethal missile designed to replicate a weather balloon. But we jumped the gun, and now, we’ve waged war without knowing it.

Too often, in our daily lives, our accusations are based on circumstantial evidence, often because that is the only way we can arguably build a framework of what is happening in our world. In the case of international politics, circumstantial evidence, which can be very weakly derived as well, is what is relied on justification, and using that to affirm and create a mental structure where the opinion of proponents will not be changed by reason, but rather by exposure to that fear to make an understanding of what is to come.

I’ve grown up in a very diverse town, and many people in America have grown up in diverse cities- and it’s why many of those cities don’t treat our minorities as poorly as others, because we don’t have an intuitive reason otherwise. The only way those minds in leadership can change if there is an exposure to that social shift that can still make the mind feel though as fi, even if the group changes, that it is safe and secure.

This fear is also psychologically rooted, not in an intent to harm, but rather a sense of disgust. It’s commonly known that a difference between conservatism and liberalism is openness, and a huge part of that comes from our basic sense of disgust- with Conservatism being the protective part of the spectrum, often more disgusted, clean, orderly, and favoring tradition as to not break-what-works. Liberalism is often more coordinated with less disgust, with openness to experimentation, disorganization, change, with the idea being to make rapid changes to create improvement. On a healthy political spectrum and internal spectrum, there is good in both, because healthy conservatism keeps things in check and gives time towards deep progress, while liberalism is what cultivates the pursuit of growth and to become uncomfortable. But gone too far, it can lead to extreme violation of human rights, or on the flip side, anarchy.

There’s a core truth to our international politics: We are still just as tribal as we were before, we just have had a massive frame in our minds, and it’s not been unified across the globe.

What you’ll see about many global tyrants were that they were unusually disposed to extreme cleanliness, because in order to justify the ridding, removal, or manipulation of anything in a sweep of power can only be justified when the idea of a specific change is identified as disgusting. This is primal- it’s not about power, because there are limits to what we will do in power if we simply will not abide by it. As I mentioned, while discrimination is rooted in fear or weakness, the justification is in disgust, and as a result, the way that changes is through example. When people look up to, society accepts and includes it through experimental trial, or when it is put upon them under the hierarchical pressure of their values, that feeling changes.

Finally, there comes selfishness. Mistreatment for others gains for the oppressor, and there is comfort in being in a position where you do not feel as if you cannot be harmed, or that you are protected. That is why, for a governing party (individual or collective), change only happens when it is either defeated or exposed to change so much, it becomes comfortable to it. There is a certain framework to wanting power- it keeps reputation in check, is safe, and gives great changes of great gain.

We have evolved to believe that gain and safety contribute to success because it is what makes a party more likely to reproduce and grow- once again, a law of nature. However, in order for parties to give up that rulership, they have to be influenced to reshape power as having discernment over oneself to a point that is greater than anyone else’s ability to do so, and as a result, gives you an appropriate reason to be in a position of responsibility, because your choices have a process that can, empirically, benefit all the members of people one governs. It’s also important to recognize- for that governing body, to realize that when it gets power, it should be an act that realizes that it loses its personal gain over others and that such an act is impossible to perform, and as such, they need to be transparent about the balance that they believe will serve both them and the people to the best of their ability- and that is how the electorate should be selected.

Now that the thinking of this has been broken down, the path to figuring the problem of the picture grows more clear, but it needs to be wrapped into interpretation to truly be beneficial, which is what the remanded of this exploration must do.

The diagnosis of why these countries mistreat is complex, and it runs deep into who we are as humans. But understanding how this moral system works helps find the blueprint for why intolerable behavior here can be tolerated elsewhere.

The people who govern, commit, embody, and justify raw, open, and- genuinely undebatable discriminatory and hateful behaviors to others in a write of power, they aren’t people who we can perceive as a pure danger out of random roots. These are people who bleed through fear, rally on unjust thinking, pose internalized weaknesses, feelings of disgust, and strong preferences that leave them fearing any exposure that makes them be forced to change their perspective of the world. They’re challenged by those who can keep an open mind, have a discussion, defend their position, and fight for what they believe is right form a standpoint that has a utilitarian boundary within their priority.

But it is this frame of mind that keeps things under a shake, and by being able to discern the root embodiment, the strategies we can employ to dismantle or make our case to these changes can be ever-present and functional towards solving the problem.

Also, for the people who might want to comment on how I am making America pose a moral righteous embodiment of how to treat people, I’m not, and it’s not. There isn’t one. Morality isn’t a raw superiority complex. This is a study of what goes on elsewhere, not domestically. But it’s important to remember that the dangers of what has been going on internationally, we are ever-grateful isn’t happening here- or for those who read, likely us and, at hopefully, the central areas we reside in, no matter the country. There’s a reason why it isn’t.

Essayist, Author of Mindshifts, contributor at Dialogue and Discourse, Extra, plus a couple of others. Tweet me @ShauryaPandya