Perspective of Minimizing Disadvantage: Human Rights, Democracy, Realism
Basic human rights, democracy, and realism in international relations might seem to be based on different values.
Basic human rights place value on the individual. Democracy, while partially valuing the individual, ultimately emphasizes the opinion of the majority in society, thereby valuing the majority group. Realism in international relations values the unit of the nation-state, with the highest value placed on one’s own country.
Basic human rights deal with universal values, where there is no difference in value between oneself and others. Democracy deals with values that change depending on the situation, with a difference in value between the majority and minority. Realism in international relations, as mentioned earlier, is centered on self-interest.
In this way, from the perspective of the unit of value and whether the values are universal or selfish, these seem to be completely different value systems.
However, when viewed not from the perspective of the value gained but from the perspective of the value lost, it becomes clear that there is a strategic common point in these concepts. They all are based on the idea of minimizing the value lost in anticipation of others acting selfishly.
In the Case of Basic Human Rights
Basic human rights provide a moral foundation, but this is strong because many people agree with this way of thinking. We cannot know absolute good. Therefore, while there is some commonality, standards of good and evil differ by culture and era.
We do not know if basic human rights are an absolute good. However, the fact that many people agree with it supports this concept strongly. Then, how do people of different cultures support this idea when it is unclear if it is an absolute good? It is because there is a benefit for many people.
Consider a society that allows violation of others’ rights and a society that operates while protecting basic human rights. Forget about moral good and evil, and think from the perspective of individual benefit.
In a society that tolerates rights violations, some people can actively engage and reap many benefits by sacrificing others, while others suffer the disadvantages. In a society that protects rights, those who are active are limited in their benefits as they cannot violate others’ rights. On the other hand, others do not suffer harm and their disadvantages are significantly reduced.
For those who are not confident in being active, clearly, a rights-protecting society is preferable. However, for those with the capability and confidence to be active, from the perspective of maximizing benefit, a society that ignores rights seems preferable.
Yet, even these active people cannot be sure their capability and confidence will always remain. Considering their descendants, there will be times when some are not capable. Therefore, even active people, when considering the worst-case scenario, would find a society that protects basic human rights desirable. Of course, complete equality would mean a significant opportunity loss for the active, so they would prefer a situation where everyone is guaranteed a certain line of rights to prepare for the worst while having opportunities to be active and enjoy the benefits.
In the Case of Democracy
Similarly, let’s consider democracy. We do not know if democracy is an absolute good. Therefore, the focus is on whether many people support it or not.
Democracy has two major features. One is the contrast with authoritarianism, like absolute monarchy. The second is the principle of majority rule.
The contrast with authoritarianism follows a similar pattern to basic human rights. For those in power, authoritarianism has great benefits, while for others, democracy allows for the replacement of those in power, minimizing the disadvantages in the worst-case scenario.
Those in power would also prefer authoritarianism in the best-case scenario, but democracy, where regaining power is possible if one can garner enough support, in the worst-case scenario. Historically, as many societies have seen the end of authoritarianism, many in power cannot only consider the best-case scenario.
Regarding the principle of majority rule, if the opinions of a minority with certain characteristics, like those who pay high taxes, are respected, others might suffer significant disadvantages in the worst case. Even those with certain characteristics, considering the possibility that their status may not last forever, would not always find a society that respects the opinions of people with certain characteristics desirable when considering the worst-case scenario.
Of course, the majority may make the wrong choice, but if the majority makes a mistake that results in significant disadvantages, the choice can be corrected. The worst-case scenario would be if a minority’s wrong opinion leads to significant disadvantages for the majority, and this cannot be corrected. In contemplating such worst-case scenarios, the principle of majority rule in democracy would generally be seen as desirable by many people.
Realism in International Relations
Realism in international relations is the very idea of minimizing lost value in anticipation of others acting selfishly.
Historically and realistically in the international community, the priority is often given to national interests over morals and ethics. Without a global government, even if morals and ethics are violated, countries can criticize each other but cannot impose cooperative punishment. Therefore, nations must consider their own actions and behavior under the assumption that other countries may violate moral and ethical standards.
While political leaders with ambitions to maximize their country’s interests might exist, if a bureaucratic mechanism led by intellectual elites functions effectively, they should propose strategies to the leaders that consider the worst-case scenarios. A nation can continue to increase its national interests as long as it exists, but if it ceases to exist, so do the opportunities. Therefore, intellectual elites fundamentally consider first and foremost ensuring the nation does not perish even in the worst of situations.
Realism in international relations is based on this idea and focuses on the power balance between one’s own country and others in the international community.
The safest scenario is when one’s own country holds more power than all other countries combined, but this is difficult to achieve. Therefore, while enhancing their own power, countries form alliances with others. When forming these alliances, it’s crucial to anticipate that allies will also act based on realism, as there is a risk of being easily betrayed otherwise. With this perspective, alliances are formed in a way that maintains a power balance, rather than allowing power to become skewed.
This is why international relations are often seen as being in a constant state of tension. And when the power balance unexpectedly collapses, significant turmoil can arise. Although it’s a strategy intended to minimize damage in the worst-case scenario, in an increasingly complex international society where outcomes cannot be fully predicted, many nations can end up suffering significant harm.
This doesn’t mean that the potential for damage in the worst-case scenario is being overlooked; rather, it reflects the difficult reality that focusing on minimizing damage in one aspect of the worst-case scenario can lead to the worst outcomes in another unforeseen scenario.
Empowering international organizations like the United Nations is one solution, but even this is challenging when considering the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario here is when such international bodies become heavily influenced by a few countries. From this perspective, a powerful international organization is essentially just another form of alliance, and its creation goes against the inherent tendency of realism to form alliances that do not skew the power balance.
The Interplay of Worst-Case Scenarios
Moral concepts like basic human rights, political systems like democracy, and international strategies like realism may appear as different ideas in different fields, but they all tie back to our lives. If they were entirely separate concepts, there would be no objective way to prioritize or balance them; it would be a matter solely of subjective decision-making.
However, as analyzed here, if they all fundamentally base their strategies on minimizing disadvantages in the worst-case scenarios, then we can develop an overarching strategy that compares the disadvantages of the worst-case scenarios and addresses those that lead to greater harm.
This is akin to the minimax method used in game theory, where computers are programmed to play chess or shogi.
Pushing one right or idea too strongly can potentially lead to greater damage in other aspects in the worst-case scenario. Therefore, just like in chess or shogi, and in the real world of morals, politics, and international relations, there is significant value in a strategy that considers all aspects and aligns with minimizing damage in the worst-case scenario.
Objective Evaluation of Thought Processes
Therefore, even if a particular way of thinking is presented as absolutely correct or something to be believed in, it is difficult to gain widespread support. As we cannot know the absolute good, a singular value or perspective emphasized alone is not sufficient for judgment.
Basic human rights, democracy, and realism are strongly supported in the modern world because they are based on the minimax approach of minimizing disadvantages in the worst-case scenarios.
Basic human rights, democracy, and realism, of course, are not perfect concepts. They should evolve and be supplemented as times change, and where these perspectives do not cover certain issues, different ideas will be needed.
When evaluating these amendments or new ideas, whether they can gain more support can be objectively judged based on how well they fit the criterion of minimizing disadvantages in the worst-case scenarios. A perspective that only promises improvement in the best-case scenario will likely not rival or surpass these established ideas.
Trust in Social Systems
While I have described basic human rights, democracy, and realism in international relations as based on minimizing disadvantages in the worst-case scenarios, it’s crucial to note that this is under a “conditional” worst-case scenario. This condition assumes that others neither harbor active good will nor ill will towards us.
If all others were to confront us with malice, the worst-case scenario would be extremely troublesome, with few effective countermeasures. However, we are not assuming such a premise. Instead, we assume a worst-case scenario where others are acting to maximize their own benefits or minimize their risks. Of course, their actions, decided upon for their benefit or risk minimization, might harm us, but this is not out of good will or malice; it’s merely self-interested behavior.
Assuming others do not act with good will or malice implies not relying on the good will of others. Social systems that function without relying on the good will of others are in demand, leading to the widespread adoption of mechanisms like basic human rights, democracy, and realism in international relations.
This means trusting the social system instead of individual goodwill. A social system that can function without relying on others’ good will effectively absorbs the trust. Societies tend to evolve in a direction that enhances their capacity to absorb and maintain this trust.
In Conclusion: Multicultural Coexistence
Different societies may have different moral principles, political systems, and approaches to international relations. Historically, this heterogeneity has been seen as an obstacle to harmony between societies. However, if each society correctly understands the moral principles, political systems, and approaches to international relations of the other, they can anticipate the worst-case scenarios based on this understanding.
This suggests that harmony does not require societies to be homogenous; rather, understanding each other, even in their heterogeneity, is key to harmony.
This understanding diminishes the justification for powerful nations to spread their ideologies to other countries. Each society should adopt ideologies that fit its context and should not be forced to accept those imposed by others.
Just as basic human rights, democracy, and realism in international relations offer different perspectives yet can be comparatively evaluated and balanced from the viewpoint of minimizing disadvantages, there might be a way to harmonize societies with different principles, systems, and approaches by balancing them around this central perspective. I believe that there is a path to harmonizing these diverse societies by maintaining this balance.
