Is the Use of economic sanctions to achieve goals, moral?

As a freshman taking Polisci 101 and Econ 101, all I can say is that:

The morality behind it depends on your goals, and even then it's subjective and even more complex.

While it may be hard to determine morality, it is certainly true that it is economically inefficient. The use of sanctions, taxes and any sort of economic regulation, reduces the total surplus of the market (producer + consumer surplus), due to the reduction of goods, services, or money available on the market.Who takes the brunt of that loss is important to know. It may not always be obvious either. A tax on producers may or may not be passed on to consumers depending on demand, and an outright economic sanction on a producing country may create a scarcity of goods. (An outright sanction on a demanding country may have a similar effect as producers will have less people to sell to and thus lose revenue.) That is to say, the economic pie will be smaller, and it may be distributed differently.

In any sort of moral judgment it's important to know who's losing out and who's gaining. Likewise, it is important to know who deserves a gain or a loss: who is the more just?

I think there are legitimate questions about the effects of our economic sanctions on innocents in another country. What I take some comfort in is that the polititions I vote for do not take unilateral actions against other countries unless we are directly attacked, and they consult the international community before they take actions such as economic sanctions. So the actions under the people I have voted for have been such that the offending leaders in the offending countries have had ample opportunities to come to an agreement with our country and our allies to avoid economic sanctions. By refusing to work with the international community, and to perpetrate wrongs so severe that the international community votes for harsh sanctions, they are in effect inflicting these hardships on their populations directly. So morally, I think we have to balance the need for our country to side with others to compell a change in behavior, vs the impact it may have on innocents in the offending country. I submit that it is not an easy judgement to make, and we should not assume that economic sanctions are morally wrong when they result in innocents suffering. They may be wrong, or they may be saving far more innocent people from similar or worse fates.

Yes. Why shouldn't the US use economic sanctions to coerce behavior? For example, why should the US subsidize foreign anti-American behavior with American tax dollars? It is simply another political method to change behavior. It is certainly a better option than war.

No, it is generally not "moral" to punish the people to influence the government. But it if often the most practical way, and the most advantageous to the most people.

In own relationships you call it complicated love. arising international places dont choose handouts they choose hand ups. once you nevertheless handout to everyone, they in no way improve themselves. yet once you grant the possibility for somebody to help themselves, they are far greater appreciative. I welcome sanctions in some circumstances. It forces human beings to think of and preserve themselves.

It is a national tool. So is war -- would you rather see an embargo or 500 lb bombs?

Yes.

depends on your definition of morality.

You bet, it's better than war!