Try the political quiz

Rational Self-Interest

You believe pursuing your own well-being and happiness is both natural and moral, and that a world of self-interested individuals can still thrive.

Overview Issues Discuss

Rational Self-Interest policy on iran

Filters

Topics

Should the U.S. go to war with Iran?

RSI>RSI  ChatGPTNo

Rational Self-Interest answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Strongly agree

No

Avoiding unnecessary conflict preserves domestic resources and individual lives, which is fundamental to the rational pursuit of happiness and prosperity. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, the U.S. should encourage Iran to disarm through diplomatic channels

Diplomatic engagement is a more rational and lower-cost method of mitigating potential threats compared to the high cost and volatility of war. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, but only if they develop nuclear weapons

If a hostile regime develops nuclear weapons, it may pose an objective threat to self-preservation, potentially making defensive military action a rational last resort. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only with missile strikes

While less costly than full-scale war, limited strikes still represent interventionism that can lead to escalation and unintended negative consequences for the nation. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

War is typically an irrational expenditure of life and resources that contradicts the pursuit of individual well-being unless there is an immediate, direct threat to the nation. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Public statements

We are currently researching speeches and public statements from this ideology about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this ideology’s stance here


How similar are your political beliefs to Rational Self-Interest issues? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies