It will come as no great surprise that human beings are not omniscient. We have no automatic knowledge of what is good for our survival and what will lead to our destruction. Unlike animals, which survive on instinct, human beings must use their rational minds to produce all that we need to live. We must form abstract principles based on past observations of reality which we then apply to the new situations we encounter in order to survive as human beings. Without principles every situation would be unprecedented and we would have no hope of predicting the outcome. As a simple example, if you did now know the principle that hot things can burn your skin, you would have no method of determining ahead of time if touching a stove would burn you or not. Other than grabbing ahold of it.
My 1914 Webster’s International Dictionary gives the following definition of principle: “a rule (usually, a right rule) of conduct consistently directing one’s actions.” The idea of consistency is important when considering principles. Think of the principle that you should look both ways for oncoming traffic before crossing the road. If you consistently apply this principle, your odds of safely crossing the road are pretty good. On the other hand, if sometimes you look and sometimes you don’t, you are almost certain to be run over sooner or later.
As proper principles should be followed consistently it follows they must be something that can be followed consistently. If you were to attempt to practice consistently the (false) principle that sweets are good for you and eat them all the time, you would soon find your health deteriorating, hardly something that allows you to thrive. Another example is the principle of altruism, which means the putting the needs of others ahead of your own with no expectation of any reward, direct or indirect. Imagine how long you might survive consistently applying that principle. When a principle, although one can hardly call it that in such a case, cannot be followed consistently the only way to decide when to apply it is by whim. Because you feel like it. For no reason at all.
Nations, as groups of human beings, must also, and for the same reason, have principles to guide their actions and these principles must be consistently followed. It is for this reason that President Obama’s decision to send military “advisors” to Nigeria to aid in the search for nearly 300 kidnapped girls is troubling. This situation is certainly horrific and those who did it must be condemned, but what is the principle which the President is applying that leads the United States to become involved and can it be consistently applied?
Can we take action because there is a perceived need? Obviously we cannot meet every need of every group in every corner of the globe, so the decision of which needs we would attempt to meet would be a whim. Can we take action because we have a duty to protect the innocents of other countries? If so, why take action in Nigeria and not in Syria or Venezuela or any of the doubtlessly many other places where children are in danger? Further, how do we decide how many innocents need to be in danger before we act? Why do we act to save 300 children who are threatened with being sold but not to save the one nine year old girl who is sold in to “marriage” by her parents to a 40 year old man or to pursue those who killed a 15 year old girl who spoke out for educating girls? Whim. Can we take action because a situation is horrific? The same problems as noted above apply here as well and thus the only way to choose which horrific situations to act in would be the same: whim. The truth is that there is no principle which can be consistently applied which justifies our direct involvement and thus the only reason for doing so is the President’s whim.
The only proper principle for government action, whether in foreign or domestic policy, is that government exists solely to protect the rights of its citizens. This principle can be consistently applied and should be consistently applied. If for example three hundred American children were kidnapped by terrorists, the government of the United States would be perfectly justified in moving heaven and earth to recover the children and to punish the kidnappers.
The world would be a much better, and safer, place if the United States simply traded freely with all who are not our actual enemies and vigorously defended our citizens from those who are our enemies. When we decide not by principle but by whim – which changes from moment to moment, from administration to administration – we will eventually alienate our friends and encourage our foes, leaving the world a much more dangerous place..