Which countries hold the moral high ground and why?

[Zero]

And we're sidetracking the thread...

 

[Nereid]

kat's question - about a nation's people having a feeling of moral superiority - is a good one.

A related question is whether democracies can be aggressors; or whether a democracy could ever go to war against another democracy. (Clearly, a democracy can declare war on a non-democratic country, even when the majority of its citizens clearly oppose that war - e.g. Australia, Britain, and Spain in the most recent Iraq war.)

Another aspect, lurking below the surface, is the extent to which a regime/government/etc meaningfully conveys or implements the feelings of the inhabitants.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Soldiers haven't done anything to protect America since WWII..

Sure they have. Just in a more ambiguous way. But the end of WWII was certainly a high point for American benevolence. Kat's question is a little off, because most members of a nation will claim that their own country and not some foreign government is superior in general. It's a question that can be analyzed, if morality is quantified. Quantifying national morality is going to be a tough, subjective mess. You can argue that certain types of government are inherently more moral than others- democracies and republics are more moral than kingdoms and dictatorships. Or you can look at the casualties caused by any specific state vs. other states.
Which angle do you think is more accurate?

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

A clarifying point.

History will decide which nation was more compassionate. I'm of the opinion that the U.S. will inevitably be viewed like the Romans. It is fitting because our constitution was largely built around the mistakes of the Romans. Anyways, like the Romans the United States has been subject to many defensive wars since the birth of its Republic. Like the Romans, the U.S. has the benefit of being strategically located and because of conflict has become politically and militarily dominant. Also like the Romans, it has seen its navies and armies destroyed and summarily rebuilt to meet national threats. Also, from inception both denied Kings. However the differences are that the U.S. was more free for the individuals. Barring the awful and brief stint with slavery, you have to admit the U.S. has made improvements over the Romans.

But, this is a trifle. The character of a people is more important than the land they possess. It influences the land they will possesses and what they will do with the land they have. Also, it influences how they will treat people, the most valuable thing.

Unfortunately, we had to go down the path of imperialism. In my opinion, not entirely of the U.S's fault it just happened because of natural forces. Another parallel, Rome was an Empire as the U.S. seems to be becoming. Both Rome and the U.S. rebuilt their enemies and gave them autonomy. The only difference is the U.S. didn't leave behind permanent colonial magistrates and there was never a 'citizenship' tease. The U.S. just relenquished control and gave back sovereignty.

I've proven your point though. Observation, at least now, is highly subjective. What angle will you take? I'm sorry, I couldn't answer your question.

Anyways, this is why I say the future will make improvements over us. But first must come a dark age. Of course, one I don't think history has a definition for. Anyways, I'm becoming terribly vague I'm sorry.

 

[Nereid]

PsYcHo_FiSh wrote: Barring the awful and brief stint with slavery, you have to admit the U.S. has made improvements over the Romans.

And not to forget the natives ... is it true that the (various) US governments broke every single one of the >100 treaties they signed with the various Indian nations?

schwarzchildradius wrote: You can argue that certain types of government are inherently more moral than others- democracies and republics are more moral than kingdoms and dictatorships. Or you can look at the casualties caused by any specific state vs. other states.
Which angle do you think is more accurate?

Plenty of ways to cause harm other than by directly killing people, just ask the cotton farmers of west Africa for example, or those subject to 'collective punishment' in the West Bank.

Being optimistic, the world will move towards fewer wars and less military aggression (perhaps less terrorism too). The new morality will be more economic - causing harm through restrictions on free trade for example, or high tarriffs.