Enemy Ace asks: From Whence Does Your Nation Gain Moral Authority?

CurtSibling

ENEMY ACE™
Joined
Aug 31, 2001
Messages
29,455
Helloo! :)

In a recent ‘debate’ on OT, I was intrigued by many interesting views by my fellow posters.
It seems that it is easy these days to assume that you have a superior moral philosophy,
thus, you are able to make choices on behalf of a different country.

Where does you nation's moral authority come from?

What do you think? Is it right to think so?

Please attempt to answer these questions!

1. Is it OK for your nation to make a decision to bomb someone else, based on the view that they have the right to do so?

2. Do you believe your nation has more moral rights than many other/lesser countries?

3. Looking back at your own nation’s history, do you think you have a moral right to advise/warn/attack other nations?

4. Do you worry about how other nation perceive your country?

5. Do you think that the ‘might is right’ philosophy is correct, should your nation just bully it’s way to the top?

6. Can you justify bombing another country based upon your nation’s perceived moral superiority?

Feel free to expand upon your answers!
Your participation is appreciated!
Thanks for taking part! :D
 
1) No. Besides that, our constitution doesn't allow such nonsense.

2) No. Nations don't have moral rights. Nations have legal rights.

3) No. My nation was the most aggressive nation of the 20th century. Repetitas non placent.

4) Depends. Being identified with my nationality to a certain degree, I'd appreciate to be viewed fair and not prejudiced.

5) No. My nation does fine where it is and should mind its own business in the first place.

6) See also -> 2) No. There is no such thing as moral superiority of a nation. In fact there is only moral for individuals and no such thing as moral superiority at all. Bombing shows only the inability to or the lack of reason. The shooting's easy if you've got the right gun, of course.
 
Moral superiority is only a fig leaf used to cover up a dastardly design for the action.:evil:
 
Originally posted by CurtSibling
1. Is it OK for your nation to make a decision to bomb someone else, based on the view that they have the right to do so?

2. Do you believe your nation has more moral rights than many other/lesser countries?

3. Looking back at your own nation’s history, do you think you have a moral right to advise/warn/attack other nations?

4. Do you worry about how other nation perceive your country?

5. Do you think that the ‘might is right’ philosophy is correct, should your nation just bully it’s way to the top?

6. Can you justify bombing another country based upon your nation’s perceived moral superiority?

Feel free to expand upon your answers!
Your participation is appreciated!
Thanks for taking part! :D

1.) Yes.

2.) Yes.

3.) Yes, most certainly.

4.) No.

5.) Yes.

6.) No. I can justify bombing another country based upon my nation's actual moral superiority.
 
Okay, so this comes from the Mugabe thread.

Well, when forming an opinion on a current topic (like Mugabe), why should users of this forum have to take into account the actions or opinions of people who lived many generations ago who just happened to be from the same country (or not)?
 
1) No

2) No

3) Yes, no names mentioned *cough* England *cough*

4) No

5) I dont really, and if i did, lets face it, its not gonna happen :p

6) I didnt know Scotland had a Moral superiority...
 
All nations are sovereign.

A democracy is more legitimate than a dictatorship. By democracy I mean any gov't where popular vote is involved in gov't representation or decision-making. (This is a very broad interpretation -- but I mean true democracy, not rigged elections.)

All nations should have a Bill of Rights, to protect political minorities f/ persecution based on arbitrary lifestyle choices.

Practically speaking, might IS right, but bullies should be checked by coalitions of weaker powers. Bullies should be morally condemned and physically restrained.

1) The wording of your question is circular. If I believe my nation has the right to bomb another I believe it is OK for my nation to bomb another. What we would argue about is what gives us the right? An attack on our soil? An attack on an ally? The threat of such an attack? The threat of such an attack and a history of following through? Lack of democracy? Pure avarice?

An attack is a no-brainer. The others are debatable, but pure avarice is not a justifiable reason in my mind.

Conclusion: maybe.

2) In international terms, nations that are democratic and free have the highest moral authority, because their gov'ts are the most legitimate and accountable.

My country is one of the more democratic and free, therefore the actions of the gov't reflect more on the citizens than less free nations. This is the closest thing to moral authority a nation can hope for.

Whether or not those actions are morally right are entirely subjective. Sorry I can't pin it down any more than that.

3) As much as any other nation. The US has far f/ a perfect record, what w/ the slavery and consfiscation of lands f/ the indigenous people here, but both of those policies were rooted in history that happened before the US even existed -- policies of Spain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and England.

The important thing is that our nation has (so far) become more moral over time, that we minimize or eliminate any propensity for imperialistic bullying and that we don't become bigger imperialist bullies in the future.

4) Yes. It's a fine line between being assertive enough not to be taken advantage of and being humble enough to defer to over nations as appropriate.

5) Might is right is a practical, but odeous concept. I prefer to preserve might for defense and deterance.

6) If they are attacking another nation or committing acts of genocide, than bombing is justifiable. Other justifications for bombing are highly debatable.
 
1. Is it OK for your nation to make a decision to bomb someone else, based on the view that they have the right to do so?
As long as we win, no problem. When there is no judge, there is no law. Hence the idea of right and wrong is not applicable.

2. Do you believe your nation has more moral rights than many other/lesser countries?
Nope, but we have more panzers.

3. Looking back at your own nation’s history, do you think you have a moral right to advise/warn/attack other nations?
Mostly, we tried not to warn them before we attacked.

4. Do you worry about how other nation perceive your country?
Nope, but please don't mention the war.

5. Do you think that the ‘might is right’ philosophy is correct, should your nation just bully it’s way to the top?
Macchiavelli has still to be disproved. Love-thy-neighbor is for priests and socialist college girls. :rolleyes:

6. Can you justify bombing another country based upon your nation’s perceived moral superiority?
But Curt, it will be the-war-to-end-all-wars. ;)
 
Originally posted by CurtSibling
Helloo! :)

Please attempt to answer these questions!

1. Is it OK for your nation to make a decision to bomb someone else, based on the view that they have the right to do so?

2. Do you believe your nation has more moral rights than many other/lesser countries?

3. Looking back at your own nation’s history, do you think you have a moral right to advise/warn/attack other nations?

4. Do you worry about how other nation perceive your country?

5. Do you think that the ‘might is right’ philosophy is correct, should your nation just bully it’s way to the top?

6. Can you justify bombing another country based upon your nation’s perceived moral superiority?

1. Britain can bomb another country justifiably:

a) Self-defense: e.g Iraq supposedly, though we can fall back upon c.

b) Retaliation: e.g The invasion of the Falklands.

c) Removal of tyrants and to protect people against those who commit crimes against humanity such as: Sierra Leone (in practice), Iraq and Kosovo.

d) To protect vital British interests...Cod Wars :p


2. Do you believe your nation has more moral rights than many other/lesser countries?

Britain is a democracy, has excellent human rights and civil liberties. Furthermore Britain plays a major role in providing assistance through government funds and private donations to charities to help the rest of the world. Britain is an imporant member of the U.N and does committ troops when necessary to assist the U.N maintain its credibility.

This gives us a moral superiority over those nations that aren't democratic, don't have good human and civil rights and that don't committ as much funds/manpower to assisting other countries.


3. Looking back at your own nation’s history, do you think you have a moral right to advise/warn/attack other nations?

If we had not changed throughout our history with the successive generations, from generations that endorsed slavery to the Victorians who put a stop to much of it, to the way our Empire dealt far better in the occupation of so many peoples and countries than other Empires of the period such as the Spanish and Portuguese. Furthermore what our empire left as a legacy in much of these countries and across the World.

Pillars of modern society such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America owe much to Britain for the manner in which they have developed. The "Western Civilization" and World Order today owes much to the Britain Empire and Colonialism and compared to the alternatives is in my view preferable to the alternatives.

It is from what Britain has established across the World and what has developed from it and the way we operate now that gives us a moral authority over much of the World that is far behind us in terms of wealth, provision of human and civil rights and democracy.

I do think our Nation does have the right to advise/warn/attack other countries depending on the circumstances. I don't think we have the right to, say, bomb the Republic of Ireland for beating us at football, but if they were a Dictatorship that was killing anyone who was opposing their policy of everyone working in Paddy Fields then I think we should act.


4. Do you worry about how other nation perceive your country?

Of course, for their perception will determine in what manner they will conduct business/relations with us. Nice to see however we are a popular destination to flee to if your country is beset by oppression and torture even though we aren't the easiest destination to get to from such countries.

Of course, our football supports have done us great credit is representing our Nation abroad and their visits abroad as with the trips of people to the beaches of Spain and Florida have not made foreigners think we are all poorly educated, loud, aggressive, drink fueled, annoying, morons.

Thank god for the BBC for promoting another image of Britain :D


5. Do you think that the ‘might is right’ philosophy is correct, should your nation just bully it’s way to the top?

"Might is right" in that without the backing of force other nations/forces would be able to sweep aside those rights and freedoms we enjoy and replace them with something else.

That we have to bully those that would oppose our way of life is a given if they would look to destroy our way of life. Flower Power wouldn't have stopped Nazism or the Totalitarian form of Communism toted by Stalin, whilst a strong belief in our own way of life and having the arms to protect it, would!


6. Can you justify bombing another country based upon your nation’s perceived moral superiority?

Yes. But moral superiority cannot overcome needless deaths and a cure that is worse than the problem. We have to make an accurate cost-benefit assessment when regarding our decision to intervene. That is vital ;)
 
1. We don't have any bombs :mischeif:

2. We have fewer

3. We have an obligation to work with other nations to help provide security about the world. I would stongly oppose unilateral behaviour by Canada.

4. Yes, our foreign policy (i.e. lack thereof) is very embarassing.

5. Might is a supplement for people without brains.

6. Of course not.
 
Originally posted by Phantom Lord
1) No. Besides that, our constitution doesn't allow such nonsense.

2) No. Nations don't have moral rights. Nations have legal rights.

3) No. My nation was the most aggressive nation of the 20th century. Repetitas non placent.

4) Depends. Being identified with my nationality to a certain degree, I'd appreciate to be viewed fair and not prejudiced.

5) No. My nation does fine where it is and should mind its own business in the first place.

6) See also -> 2) No. There is no such thing as moral superiority of a nation. In fact there is only moral for individuals and no such thing as moral superiority at all. Bombing shows only the inability to or the lack of reason. The shooting's easy if you've got the right gun, of course.
I agree with all points.
 
1. Is it OK for your nation to make a decision to bomb someone else, based on the view that they have the right to do so?

Well, the lousy thing about this question is that it presumes "the view" to be the only reason. There are cases where I think a nation clearly DOES have the right "to bomb" someone else. Also, "to bomb" is a somewhat simplistic question; I for one believe that wars can be more moral based on how one fights them, and there are a lot of different things that one can "bomb."

2. Do you believe your nation has more moral rights than many other/lesser countries?

Well, not my nation, which I think is an embarrassment waiting to redeem itself. But I beleive nations can earn more moral rights than other countries, insofar as some countries do not govern themselves with basic human dignity in mind.

3. Looking back at your own nation’s history, do you think you have a moral right to advise/warn/attack other nations?

On some things, yes, on others, no.

4. Do you worry about how other nation perceive your country?

I worry about how I percieve my country. A better question might be, do you worry about the standards that people apply to your country?

5. Do you think that the ‘might is right’ philosophy is correct, should your nation just bully it’s way to the top?

Depends how :D

6. Can you justify bombing another country based upon your nation’s perceived moral superiority?

??? Disappointing question. Again, be more specific. If I can provide one example, Canadian bombers bombed the snot out of German cities in WWII. I don't support the decision to bomb the way they did (e.g. firebombing of cities with intent to destroy, without any reason to beleive that these attacks would effect the war effort beyond terror value). However, while I don't think that was justified, nor do I support the decision, I do understand why the decision to do it was made.

R.III
 
Each nation has a collective morality, a common ground based on what thier society percieves to be right and wrong. That 'morality' has come from religion and social evolution over time.

Its on this basis that laws are made, and its those laws that authorise war on other nations in the modern world.
 
Originally posted by gael
Each nation has a collective morality, a common ground based on what thier society percieves to be right and wrong. That 'morality' has come from religion and social evolution over time.
I often differ from my countrymen, and I guess, I'm not the only one who does. But I don't know 'em all, so I can't really say.

I don't think nations are monolithic blocks, where everybody feels the same way. Maybe anywhere, in any country, there are 30% for a given topic, 30% against it and another 30% just don't care at all.

At least, thats what I hope. It's only the totallitarian regimes who have 99% approval.
 
Originally posted by smalltalk

I often differ from my countrymen, and I guess, I'm not the only one who does. But I don't know 'em all, so I can't really say.

I don't think nations are monolithic blocks, where everybody feels the same way. Maybe anywhere, in any country, there are 30% for a given topic, 30% against it and another 30% just don't care at all.

At least, thats what I hope. It's only the totallitarian regimes who have 99% approval.

Your over simplifying what i said.
When i said collective morality, I mean't generally speaking. A core base of right and wrong that the people of a certain society judge themselves and others on.

I never suggested that it was a white wash of ideas and opinions.
 
gael, you may be right. After all, why would someone take pride of his nationality, his ethnic or tribal heritage, if it was not for a shared point-of-view, a common goal, even a certain temperament or character.

(But maybe we should save this for another thread?)
 
I believe all nations are equal and none are better than any others, but to simplify my life:

1)NO (war sucks)

2)NO

3)Yes (sure, why not, the other nations will just choose to not accept it, but oh well)

4)No (The other countries can keep their @##@% opinions to themselves :D)

5) No (but we already have :()

6) No (isn't that the same as #1? :confused: )
 
Originally posted by CurtSibling

1. Is it OK for your nation to make a decision to bomb someone else, based on the view that they have the right to do so?

Yes.

2. Do you believe your nation has more moral rights than many other/lesser countries?

Yes.

3. Looking back at your own nation’s history, do you think you have a moral right to advise/warn/attack other nations?

Yes.

4. Do you worry about how other nation perceive your country?

"You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't."

In other words, I'm not worried.

5. Do you think that the ‘might is right’ philosophy is correct, should your nation just bully it’s way to the top?

We are at the top and didn't have to bully anyone. We simply mobilized our manpower and resources better than everyone else.

"...in the end we beat them with Levi 501 jeans. Seventy-two years of Communist indoctrination and propaganda was drowned out by a three-ounce Sony Walkman. A huge totalitarian system with all its tanks and guns, gulag camps, and secret police has been brought to its knees because nobody wants to wear Bulgarian shoes. They may have had the soldiers and the warheads and the fine-sounding ideology that suckered the college students and nitwit Third Worlders, but we had all the fun. Now they're lunch, and we're number one on the planet."

6. Can you justify bombing another country based upon your nation’s perceived moral superiority?

Yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom