Harmony of Interests and Moral Relativity

Thank God Carr shed some light on this and despite his utopian hopes, recognized this is not the best idea. Going back to my claim that achieving a global will is impossible, the truth is that the factors that give rise to the divergent interests around the globe cannot be easily obliterated. These differences are not just a product of our reason, like Kant would want to believe, that can be easily switched off by merely enlightening our reason banks. Instead, they are deep-rooted divides born of each nations' turbulent history and struggles. Moreover, these factors are not just social or cultural, but geopolitical and economic and cannot be swept away with a shift in thinking or attitude, but make up the fiber of a nation. They are hard realities that breed the difference of interests between the first world and the third world, between theocracies and democracies, between capitalism and communism. As long as these differences remain, which I would predict will be as long as civilization exists, there cannot be a harmony of interests.

Carr has done an invaluable service by unmasking the interests of various dominant groups whether they are in economics, politics or even in any other field. I believe that this neo-Marxian critique eventually gave rise to critical theory, which went on to do the same thing essentially. His case is irrefutable, with his quotes from Briand, Wilson, Hitler, Churchill, Toynbee and Cecil. It is amazing how the exposition of their policies flowed not from absolute principles but from practice, to suit their national interests.

In 1919, a Hindu nationalist turned Yogi named Sri Aurobindo wrote about the possibility of a League of Nations and what it would look like. When reading this qoute, think of the League and of the UN:"The idea of international unity to which this intervention of the revived force of nationality is leading, takes the form of a soc-called League of Nations.Practically however, the League of Nations under present conditions or any likely to be immediately realized would still mean the control of the earth by a few great Powers—a control that would be checked only by the necessity of conciliating the sympathy and support of the more numerous smaller or less powerful nations. On the force and influence of these few (Great Powers) would reset practically, if not admittedly, the decision of all important debatable questions. And without it there could be no chance of enforcing the decisions of the majority against any recalcitrant great Power or combinations of Powers." The Ideal of Human Unity, 1919. So it was with the League and indeed their vested interests as Carr points out. Now the same is true of the UN now and what Sri Aurobindo said is the same. But consider this, the UN was supposed to be more effective than the League, so how could it have turned out like it is? posted by Sir Francis Bacon at 11:42 PM