For government
Firstly, despite of the reality that government of Yemen is not able to response to this famine by virtue of the war issues and other severe factors, let us suppose that this government actually has the ability to do something. They can increase the production, develop public infrastructure, etc. What about feeding the people? It sounds like the most direct and workable solution. A lot of us will say yes. But what happen next? The government can feed them for a little while, at least as long as it could, keep them alive for a little while longer... till they give more birth to the next generation, more people are born and even much more people die in the future? Or as Machiavelli may propose here if he is ever so spooky to live util nowadays, that the government(leaders) should just be a cruel, ruthless but qualified decision-maker and let people die themselves. Anyhow people will not live a quality life in war condition and there will be more people dying in the future because current aids save lives and raise up the population of next generation. So why don't we just terminate their suffering sooner and quicker?
For us
This is one hand. On the other hand, as Machiavelli argues that normal person and leaders should be abide by different moral code, does it mean that we can feel at ease and donate food and provide aid since we are promoting the rightness by helping people? They are flesh and blood, how can we just let them fade away? We cannot stop the war in Yemen, we cannot individually go to Yemen and produce more crops, we cannot simply bring people to other country and provide them a job. It seems that only thing we can do is donating food.
Such a dilemma! What we are doing is increasing the future death by not increasing the current death. Maybe Machiavelli is incisively right.
I really like how you were able to make a convincing argument using Machiavelli's approach to moral obligation of the government and its use of authority to protect a society from further harm. This is also a good explanation for why international intervention can be so controversial, because simply "donating" food and clothes only goes so far and in fact may not be of either state's best interest in terms of resource management and future development. The question of whether "we terminate their suffering sooner and quicker" is still a topic that can easily be debated for either side, however.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the ruler's chief concern for Machiavelli? I ask because it may be possible that he would be for helping his people since it would increase his own power no?
ReplyDeleteDo you mean not feeding people will evoke hatred, which a leader should contrive to avoid? Maybe I consider this more in people's side. It will be merciful to end their suffering but It may not increase benefits for leaders. Leaders' cruelty will be exerted under a precondition which it will prevent future disorder of society from happening. Therefore I do think that incremental population will rise up the problem in the future. Therefore, for the sake of weighting both present and future, leader in the case will stop feeding people.
DeleteAnd also for the purpose of maintaining the state, leaders should act against charity, humanity(70). Then according to Machiavelli, what will be the best move to sustain and preserve the country Yemen? Wouldn't it be, rather than widespread the resources such as contriving to feed everyone, government should focus on certain, smaller aspect to devote more. for better and more obvious outcome, such as ceasing the war?
DeleteI think that ending the war would be the best solution in the long-term. However, it is probably also the hardest solution to successfully achieve. The most "Machiavellian" thing for the government in Yemen to do right now would be to work towards ending the war as quickly as possible, while not using too many resources to end the famine. That sounds harsh, and it is, but it would probably benefit the country the most in grand scheme of things.
ReplyDeleteI think that in condition of war it is the government's responsibility to protect its people and not let them die. I also agree with Rachel's point that trying to end the war as soon as possible with the usage of most of the country's resources would be the best solution to the problem because it makes no difference if the government only dedicates its recourses to feeding its nation, and does not strive towards ending the war. In such case, the resources of the country will be eventually exhausted.
ReplyDelete