Morality and Power

In making a moral evaluation of any policy, past or present, we have to inquire into the motives of the policymakers. There is a tendency among ideologues from both ends of the spectrum to deduce hidden motives and/or apply unspoken dogmas (such as economic determinism, for instance) to their analyses, without bothering to look up what policymakers actually thought they were doing.

Since I proceed from the assumption that all power is used for "the good" of those in a position to exercise it, the question of how power justifies itself--whether as divinely ordained, mandated by crisis, or democratically inspired--is not morally relevant. All power justifies itself; and since it is not the tendency of humans to view themselves as criminals, the fact that those in positions of authority internalize the noble intentions of their institutions proves nothing. Adolf Eichmann certainly did not see himself as a monster; he was simply fulfilling his institutional role within the Third Reich. Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union. The Spanish and Portugese brought "civilization" and Christianity to South America. We settled land left "idle" by the Native Americans. A hundred years later we defended South Vietnam against its own population by laying waste to the nation. And we continue to prop up deeply unpopular regimes in Latin America and the Middle East because, after all, they're better than "the alternative"--a catch-all expression (interchangable with "communism") for "any government who feels a responsibility for the welfare of its people," and not the needs of US investors, financial institutions, manufacturing corporations, etc., to paraphrase the late George Kennan. So, no: I don't make moral evaluations based on the stated intentions, sincere or otherwise, of those in positions of authority over the lives of others. Morality relates specifically to behavior and its predictable human consequences, not "intent."