This question popped in my head when thinking about bussinesses, where being ethical can cause a lack of competitiveness vs unethical bussinesses, and yet most would generally agree that being a good person is more important than the bottom line. But what about governments? If rulers find themselves in a position where taking an ethical stance can hurt their own people, what would be the correct choice? Can a bad action (think a raid, an embargo, a preemptive attack) ever be justified by the circumstances?
The XXI century so far has shown that a country can prosper without having to choose between a major and lesser evil, so maybe there's hope that things will only get better from here onwards. But what if this is just an unusual period of peace in our history? If you were ever caught in the middle of a major war would you rather have your government stick to a code of conduct at the expense of survival, or would you prefer cold hearted pragmatism?
The XXI century so far has shown that a country can prosper without having to choose between a major and lesser evil, so maybe there's hope that things will only get better from here onwards. But what if this is just an unusual period of peace in our history? If you were ever caught in the middle of a major war would you rather have your government stick to a code of conduct at the expense of survival, or would you prefer cold hearted pragmatism?