Entry 734, on 2008-04-05 at 18:52:41 (Rating 2, Politics)
Should we as a country always take the course that leads to the greatest practical benefit for the nation or should we look at the bigger picture and even consider (gasp!) the morality of the situation? Its not always obvious what the best decision is in any given situation and its particularly hard to choose between the more definite short term advantage and a possibly greater but longer term advantage.
I can clarify this rather general and rambling introduction by giving a few examples. Should New Zealand allow American nuclear powered or nuclear weapon armed ships to visit our ports? Should be push ahead with carbon taxes even though we contribute a miniscule amount to global warming? Should we be introducing a component of renewable biofuel into our fuel supplies? Should New Zealand be involved with American hostility in Iraq? Should we be signing a trade agreement with China even though that country has a poor record of human rights?
Before I go further I have to say that I am an atheist and I don't think there is any higher source of absolute morals. So if there is no absolute moral right why should we be restricted by a course of action involving doing what's right? Well, I don't think there is an absolute morality imposed by a higher authority but I do think we can establish one based on ideas shared by most people of what is right and wrong.
So keeping nuclear ships out of our ports has given New Zealand a lot of respect in the world, as has staying out of the American wars except in security and rebuilding roles. Failing to cooperate with America in those situations might have lead to less cooperation in trade and had a detrimental affect on our economy but at least we did the right thing wihtout too many obvious repercussions.
So what about initiatives designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions? I think we should go ahead with these too because it enhances our reputation as a moral nation and I think other countries will need to face the same issues eventually. By the time they do we will already have a major lead in the area (along with other countries who take global warming seriously). I know that the Kyoto protocol is not the best practical way to tackle the problem but at least it is a start, and its a way we can set an example.
So what about trade with China? It might seem that after what I have said above I would be against it. But look at the government's dilemma: their job is to do what's best for the people of New Zealand and its clear that, in the first instance, trade with China is good for the country. But trading with a country which has a poor record on human rights is immoral according to my definition above. So its not an easy one to answer. Of course, the fact that this is an election year shouldn't be left out of the equation either! Oh yes, and then there's the Olympics too!
Everyone already trades with China, of course. Most of the products we buy are made there, so taking a real stand and refusing all contact would be ridiculous. So maybe its better to pick and choose the issues where we want to exercise our moral leadership!
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2008-04-09 at 12:18:27:
Our great foreign minister tells us we didn't get a very good deal with China and manufacturers like F&P are saying this will be bad for them. Maybe we should have stuck with our moral theme and not signed this deal at all.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE