Which is more important in foreign policy:  Ethics or National Interest?
360383
The national interest actually lies in ethics.\nWhile it might not seem so in the short term, acting unethically will weaken us morally. It also prompts others to retaliate etc. like 9/11 which cannot be good for anyone.\n\nWe should lead morally and ethically even if in the short term it puts us at a slight disadvantage.
779500
i wouldn't say there is one... but those who are more interested in what is best for themselves instead of what is in the best interest of those they represent would top the list.
1048068
In addition to the answer I posted on your other version of this question, I am also curious about the strength of the general population's belief that there is a strong distinction/line between commercial and government interests. Likewise, I'm interested in their mild interest in the congressional corruption scandals and the campagin finance legislation.  Yesteryears political paradigm is I think marketed by the parties of today to distract from the value empty activities the engage in today.
708243
Influence on what? \n\nEuropean policies have wide ranging implications for all member states in all sorts of fields - business, health and safety, educations, welfare rights, employment, inheritance, transport, building regulations, even down to the size of sugar lumps and teabags. \n\nNational policies need to take into account any Directives or Regulations from the EU and any decisions made in the European Courts but also include policies specific to the country concerned. At present, there is not as much steer from Europe over defence and foreign policy, well, at least until the constitution for Europe is accepted so national governments are comparatively free to devise their own policies in these areas. \n\nRegarding local government, responsibility for local tax gathering and spending has been devolved to local councils but I think you should consider devolution in Scotland for example as an indication of local government that has been devolved to the most local level. \n\nHope this was what you meant!
93581
The focus of an interest group can overshadow the voice of the common person and present a false image that an issue is of greater importance than it is to the general public.  The monies brought to bear on an issue by interest groups cannot be matched by individuals who may not be represented by a group.
410177
Public policy is based on what (according to the general consensus) is good for most people, or for the community. Public policy is the driving force behind many laws. For example, speed limits and drivers licenses are based on the public policy of keeping the roads moderately safe. The confidentiality (privilege) for speaking with an attorney or priest or counselor is based on the public policy goal of people seeking help for their problems.\n\nEthics are the codes and rules that apply to a particular profession. Attorneys have ethical codes, including confidentiallity. Priests have ethical codes, based upon the morals of their religion. Evem business tycoons have ethical codes (or so rumor has it).\n\nWhere something is generally accepted as an ethical duty, such as attorneys or priests keeping confidences, and where that ethical duty is generally useful, that translates into a public policy favoring that ethical duty, which in turn usually gets enacted as some type of law.
134293
The answer to your first question is complex, but if you get a great answer to the 2nd one, you might just win the peace prize!!  Passions tend to overide rationality, as does money.  Policy choices in general are influenced by money and by getting re-elected.  I'm sorry, I sound cynical, surely there are some politicians out there trying their best to do the right thing for right reason.  Hopefully you will get a more in-depth answer than mine.
1117710
i do not have a political affiliation i never agree %100 with one so why should i follow them.  I think of my own ideas and believe what i would like.  The most important issue is national security and terrorism, because without our own security and having invaders, nothing else can ever be accomplished.
797819
It always has.  The so-called 'personal lives' of public figures, particularly political figures, have always been of great public interest.  On the practical side, in countries with an aristocracy, personal choices can directly affect lineage, and the ability to pass on power/title through a family. \n\nIn the US, I agree that personal lives/choices should be private in most cases, but there are definite exceptions.\n\nIf a person is in the public eye BECAUSE they preach, dictate, counsel, or impose 'morality,' particularly if it is their job to do so,and they fail to meet their own standards, then their hypocrisy is of public interest, and should be exposed.\n\nIn the case of a minister/preacher/ priest, ostensibly a moral guide and guardian, and especially one who not only uses his moral authority to make money, but as a political platform from which to support political candidates, his moral failures are fair game.  \n\nThe same applies to private citizens.  If a person who makes political choices, or is an activist because of their sexual preferences, puts their personal choices into the public arena for the purpose of supporting or criticizing public leaders or figures, or legislation,  then they invite public scutiny.\n\nAlso, bear in mind, some people's sexual proclivites quite literally break laws.  Pedophilia and bestiality are illegal.  As are some acts between consenting adults, for that matter.  We won't get past the public turmoil over such things until our laws reflect and balance the realities of our society.\n\nI agree with you, in an ideal civilization, our sex lives would not be an issue, for the most part.  We wouldn't be hung up on religion, for one thing, and wouldn't be having to deal with people who felt they had the right to dictate sexual choices to others.
395938
The current major debate in international relations theory is that between Neorealism and Neoliberalism. The Neorealists believe that the international order is one that is based on anarchy and states are the chief actors. The main goal of states is security and self-preservation and their chief object is power or the balance of power.\n\nNeoliberals believe that states are the chief actors but they claim that there are grounds for states to cooperate, mainly through international institutions and also through a claim called the Democratic Peace Theory - that democracies tend not to fight other democracies. Furthermore, they say that hard power - or military power - is not the only thing that states focus on.
88047
There are many factors that should be considered including the two you mention.  I think integrity is important, but intelligence and statemanship are also important.  I think an ability to heal the great differences that are threatening to tear this country apart and unite us is the single most important characteristic that the next president must bring to the office.  \n\nMoral character has been lacking in the last two presidents.  One had sex in the White House; the other either lied to get us into a war or was fooled and couldn't figure a way to get us out of it later.  Which is worse? You decide.  I have no use for either of 'em.\n\nWe need someone who can unite us.  I see no one I have any faith in with the possible exception of John McCain.  He has all of the qualities I mentioned, plus he would have credibility as a Commander-In-Chief, something else that has been lacking at the White House for a long time.
56502
It's not the values you choose..  IT's the priority of the values you have.  \n\nThe current hot button item in the news is freedom vs. security.  Which do you value more?  Patrick Henry said, "Give me freedom or give me death"  George Bush says, "Give me your freedom so that I can protect you."
707573
foreign policies and international relations, constitutional law. importance of political parties and election campaigns
180011
It is the main reason for our foreign policy
537909
This is not new.  Successive US governments have failed to acknowledge one of the most basic ethical rules of diplomacy - i.e. that a principle applies equally to all states.\n\nFor example, if you claim you believe in democracy, then that applies equally to French, US or Venezuelan democracy.  If you claim to believe that torture is wrong, then torture in a Pakistani or Iranian prison is no better or worse than torture in Guantanamo or Baghram, Afghanistan.  If you claim to believe in the rule of international law - oh, I forgot, the US doesn't.  The US has blocked the extradition to other countries of terrorists working for - or with links to - the CIA.\n\nSo this is quite normal for US governments.  Democracy is only really acceptable if other states elect who the US government favour.  International law applies to all countries - the US governement would say - as long as we agree with it.  And torture is OK for us because we have special reasons for doing it but we do not accept that anyone else might.\n\nIt is worthy of note that despite the shameful arrogant hypocrisies of successive US governements, all the most recent US Presidents have made a big noise about their 'Christian Faith' and claim to 'speak regularly with God'.  What exactly is it that sets Bush (just one example) apart from, say, the (current) Iranian 'supreme' leader, Ali Khamanei?  Both were 'democratically elected', both are religious bigots who still live in the 14th Century, both literally believe in prehistoric works of fiction on the basis of no empirical or provable evidence, and both wield huge power over the lives - and deaths - of the world's population.  Isn't it time we grew up and recognised these as people who belong on the margins of our society and not at its centre?
951081
You will probably need to specialize on something. Ethics seems to be a field that is getting a lot of attention lately and lots of corporations, hospitals and organizations are hiring Ethics officers to oversee their policies.
20563
Yeah right. I really need someone like Susan Sarandon, Oprah, or Sean Penn to be in charge of foreign policy making decisions.  You are confusing opinions (which everyone has) with Political Science (which is very complex and difficult to master). ANYONE can act - not everyone has what it takes to be a leader. (Timothy Dalton for example - I could have played James Bond better than him!)