What moral authority does the U.S. and mccain tell Russia to stop the war on Georgia?

[still_one]

bush is in China telling THEM about human rights

What do you think would be the first response from any country who actions we critisize?

This is the legacy of the bush administration

[Seeking Serenity]

1. "What do you think would be the first response from any country who actions we critisize?"

The same reaction that would have come if President Clinton or President Obama had critized their actions.

"Go pound sand."

The moral authority card is vastly over-rated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. No, it isn't, when you still HAVE that moral authority.

There were decades when the opinion of the US was valued, and criticism by the US was taken very seriously. We were known throughout the world for being slow to go to war - WW1 raged for 3 years without us, and WW2 for considerably longer than that (depending on when you start the count) or slightly less - but we were latecomers to both conflicts. It was on our moral authority that the League of Nations and then the United Nations were created. International conventions on the conduct of war, treatment of POWs and civilian populations, use of torture, even the death penalty came from US initiatives - even when we failed to live up to them ourselves (before the US moratorium on the DP most western nations still had and used the DP; following our example, most of those countries outlawed the DP in the years between our ending the DP and starting it again).

Today? We got nothing. We failed to support Kyoto. The land mine ban. We withdrew from the ABM treaty. We moved from "last resort" to "pre-emption". We torture.

We invaded a country which did not attack us, which had no capacity to attack us, on the basis of trumped up 'evidence' which we ourselves produced. And we may be about to do it again.

Maybe those we criticized would respond "go pound sand", but they would stand shamed in the international community. Today, it is WE who are shamed, and we have no moral authority to speak with.

[Seeking Serenity]

4. Moral authority only carries any weight with those predisposed to agree with you anyway.

Our moral authority did not stop Hitler from marching on Poland. Our moral authority did not stop the Japanese from annexing Manchuria. Our moral authority has not stopped any belligerent from doing what it chose to do.

The League of Nations and the UN may have started with our original idea, but it wasn't like otherwise recalcitrant nations joined up merely because we were behind it. They did so because they saw it as being in their best interests or because there would be little consequences from doing so.

I reiterate, the claim of having "moral authority" is vastly over-rated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. I'm thinking you do not understand the concept of "moral authority". nt

[Seeking Serenity]

7. I think I do; however, I don't think there is a

singular, uniform definition of the term. Indeed, what constitutes "moral" is a very subjective thing.

Moral authority only works on those who actually have morals, or more accurately, those who actually share your morals.

I think the world has become far less moral, thus, I don't believe moral authority is much authority at all.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Moral authority is not about power - it is not about authority.

Moral authority is being recognized by others as doing the right thing, and thus being able to speak on what the right course is.

As with my death penalty example above: we were properly horrified by the way the Nazis used the death penalty against people under their control. We, and the world as a whole, judged that their use of the death penalty was itself a crime. But with that condemnation came the niggling realization that our use of the death penalty was also a crime - it was only a matter of degree. We could not guarantee that it was being used fairly and appropriately because of the prevalence of racism, forced confessions, inadequate legal defense. Therefore, it was argued that rather than risk the execution of a single innocent, it was better to never execute anyone. The vast majority of the world has come around to that reasoning. Our stance gave us the moral authority to condemn the use of the death penalty by other nations.

Then we blew it by returning to the use of it. Even now, we look at the abuses of the US justice system and argue that moral authority to stop executions in Illinois, and condemn the heavy use of the DP in Texas. Under the republicans the federal government has returned to using the DP.

Now, how can we say that Iran is wrong to execute heretics; that China is wrong to execute political prisoners, when we ourselves are executing people condemned by a deeply flawed judicial system? We can't, because we have no moral authority to do so.

In vastly simplified terms, it's Mom saying "don't smoke" as she lights another cigarette.

Moral authority has no strength to compel - in fact, compelling action is itself a violation of moral authority. Morals, of a person or of a society, must be developed within - where there is compulsion there is no morality because there is no reasoned decision on the rightness of the action, whatever it may be. Moral authority is about presenting a representation of correct action, an example to be followed. Moral authority may be found in having fair elections; it is not to be found in forcing another nation to democratize at gunpoint.

You get what I'm saying?

[Seeking Serenity]

11. I didn't say anything about gunpoint or force or coesion.

Moral authority that has any value is where, because of your stands and principles, someone not already predisposed to agree with you changes his course of action.

In the instant case, Russia is not predisposed to agree with us on not using violence in Georgia. America could have never made a misstep in its entire history and be perfectly pure and honorable, and Russia still wouldn't listen to us today. It is not, as the Russians see it, in their interest to do so.

And if the international community was predisposed to agree with Russia's position, they would not be persuaded by our protestations to the contrary irrespective of how righteous and noble and honorable America is.

Morals take a back seat to self-interest narrowly defined. You and I, I think, will both agree that that sucks. But it is reality.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. As i said, you don't get it.

Moral authority has NOTHING to do with the other, or the other's actions. It has to do with the self.

As a poster below stated, it has to do with what is right. It makes no difference if anyone agrees or not; it is showing by example what is right, and being able to stand on that example. The person who stands alone on the side of right is a majority of one.

There are certain basics that are generally agreed to be right - fighting in self-defense, rather than waging aggressive war; preserving life, rather than murder; refraining from torture; refraining from theft. A little examination will show that 'self-interest' is always best served when acting morally - that immoral acts never have long-term benefits to self-interest, no matter how you define it.

What you are defining as reality, I call Machiavellism. It doesn't work. It will always come back to bite you. Just as our illegal invasion of Iraq is biting us.

[Seeking Serenity]

13. I didn't say I liked the reality. Just acknowledging it for what it is.

The only thing moral authority does in this world is make the perceived holder of it feel better about themselves.

As I said, it sucks, but there it is.

And I reiterate, moral authority is over-rated, because if it doesn't, as you suggest, actually force any kind of real change, what good is it other than to make one feel good about oneself?

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. So our invasion of Iraq is OK?

Our torturing of prisoners is acceptable?

That's the reality.

You keep coming back to "force any kind of real change" - which is coercion, which is antithetical to moral authority.

It isn't about us "feeling" good - it is about BEING good. I'm sorry that you can't grasp the difference.

[Seeking Serenity]

15. Certainly not, to all.

I am not opposed to being good. Far from it. We should be good, merely because it is the right thing to do.

But being good will not grant us any greater or lesser standing to criticize others or make suggestions or directives to others.

We could do it either way, and either way the party being talked to, if they are not already predisposed to listen to us, will tell us to go pound sand.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. "Moral authority" is just another form of ad hominem argument.

Either a statement is right, or it isn't. Who says it is irrelevant. "You do bad things to" is not a rebuttal.


One person or entity can say to another one of two things:

1) What you are doing is immoral, for these reasons, and stopping it is the right thing to do.

2) I disapprove of what you are doing, and I will bash you (or "I will impose a 2% tariff on your sheep industry", in the case of nations) unless you stop.

Sadly, the former is essentially worthless when dealing with the governments of most nations, no matter who makes the appeal. And when, as they do, things come to the latter, the motivation or moral authority of the speaker are irrelevant.

[Seeking Serenity]

17. Is it "ad hominem" or "appeal to authority"?

I would think the reply, "Well, you do bad things, too" would be the ad hominem.

But I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Just ask my husband. :-)

[spanone]

3. z i l t c h

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Being right is the only source of moral authority.

If Jack the Ripper tried to stop the war, he'd have sufficient moral authority to do so, and if Mahatma Ghandi tried to make it worse, he wouldn't.

[zorahopkins]

8. N.O.N.E.

The corrupt, illegal, war-mongering thug misadministration of Bush/Cheney/McCain has abslotuely NO moral authority to tell ANYONE not to wage war.

And it also has NO moral authority to lecture anyone else about human rights.

[SidneyCarton]

9. None.

It would be madness to get involved here, period.