higher moral ground?

[ibm]

someone brought this up in another thread that he feels we have higher moral grounds than many other nations, such as china and north korea.

i thought it’s worth another look. so i created this thread just for that. technically this is not strictly a politics or government topic and could belong to other forums, but since it's kinda like a carry-over from another topic here on this forum...

Quote by: Cody So you dont feel we are morally superior to N Korea or Iran? Or China?

my answer would be generally no.

who is “we”? i suppose it means the american people or u.s. citizens on an aggregate. i suppose “we” doesn’t refer to our government. or maybe it does. so, does our government have higher “moral ground” than those of say china, n. korea or iran? or does a government have any “moral ground”?

were we (referring to american people here) born with a higher moral ground than the rest of the world, maybe because god (only) blesses america? or did we acquire that quality by having a government that hardnoses on so many other countries? or maybe we’ve achieved that trait by culture buildup in mcdonald’s or walmart?

and, more importantly, what is a “higher moral ground” anyway?

[Matt W]

This is definately a philosophical question, or a question on the nature of society. I'll move it and leave a redirect so people can see where it's gone...which would you prefer? Philosophy or Society?

[ibm]

it's your choice, matt. and thanks for your effort.

[Matt W]

Philosophy it is. Carry on!

[tman_ndsu08]

This is easily a philosophy question simply because there is no strict definition of what morals should be.

They're nothing more than personal choices that you make.


Further more, I don't see how the label for the area of land that you live in would effect your choices. Would your morals be different if you lived in different countries? Of course not.

[donkrabbit]

Here's a strict definition for you; morals are a set of values guiding man's decisions. Being that man is a volitional being, he cannot avoid morality. He must make decisions. His choice lies in which values he will hold.

Governments do not have morality, as an entity. Individuals have morals, and government is made up of individuals. Morals in regard to society are expressed in the form of individual rights. (Whereas morality guides an individual's actions, rights guide [in the form of negatives] individuals' interaction with each other.)

The United States is the only government founded on moral principles. It's the only country to recognize that, in order for man to live qua-man, his identity as such requires sanctioning in society- in the form of individual rights (life, liberty, and property).

[Gorgo]

Worrying about "morally superior" means that the writer thinks so little of himself that he has to feel superior to someone else. Many of the ideals that I was taught that the government of the United States promotes would be great if we could get the government of the United States to live up to them. Fact is, they keep attacking people in other countries. They are forced to treat their own people better, but they have a long way to go in that area as well.

[ibm]

Quote by: donkrabbit Here's a strict definition for you; morals are a set of values guiding man's decisions. Being that man is a volitional being, he cannot avoid morality. He must make decisions. His choice lies in which values he will hold. Governments do not have morality, as an entity. Individuals have morals, and government is made up of individuals. Morals in regard to society are expressed in the form of individual rights. (Whereas morality guides an individual's actions, rights guide [in the form of negatives] individuals' interaction with each other.) The United States is the only government founded on moral principles. It's the only country to recognize that, in order for man to live qua-man, his identity as such requires sanctioning in society- in the form of individual rights (life, liberty, and property).

i wasn't asking what moral values are. your definition was alright, though an individual could make decisions against his values at times depending on the situation.

"Governments do not have morality, as an entity. Individuals have morals, and government is made up of individuals." - agreed.

"The United States is the only government founded on moral principles." - totally disagreed. but would like to hear you elaborate it a little bit.

and back to the topic. i asked what is a "higher moral ground", and why is ours considered higher than those of the others. personally, i don't think there is supremacy (and therefore inferiority) for "moral grounds".

[Gorgo]

Moral is not a word that I use a lot. Moral generally means based on some insane premise like religion, or some absolute sense of right and wrong which is not usually very constructive.

What's best for everyone concerned? What's the most constructive thing to do? Those are questions that I care about. Morally superior seems like a way to excuse crimes. Like, "sure we illegally attack other countries, but we do it from a morally superior position." It doesn't wash.

[Samildanach]

Here's a strict definition for you; morals are a set of values guiding man's decisions.

This is not a sufficent definition. I could say that

The principles of logic are a set of values guiding mans decisions.

Both are true however I would not inherently call logic equal to morals.

[tman_ndsu08]

Here's a strict definition for you; morals are a set of values guiding man's decisions.

I didn't say "a definition of what morals are", I said "a definition of what morals should be".

IE, what should a person's morals be?

There can't be an answer, of course. That's like asking "what should art be?".

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo Worrying about "morally superior" means that the writer thinks so little of himself that he has to feel superior to someone else.

How is the moral superiority of a subject relevant to the person writing about that subject? Or are you a multiculturist arguing against moral judgements altogether? I certainly think I am morally superior to a drug addict.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: ibm your definition was alright, though an individual could make decisions against his values at times depending on the situation.

That's a sacrifice- when a person gives up a value for something of a lesser value. It's usually not voluntary. Otherwise, a person always makes his decisions based on his values.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: ibm - totally disagreed. but would like to hear you elaborate it a little bit.

It was fully explained; "It's the only country to recognize that, in order for man to live qua-man, his identity as such requires sanctioning in society- in the form of individual rights (life, liberty, and property)."

If you disagree, then tell me which other countries were founded on moral principles.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo Moral is not a word that I use a lot. Moral generally means based on some insane premise like religion, or some absolute sense of right and wrong which is not usually very constructive.

That's a fallacy of definition-by-non-essentials.

As a human, you cannot evade morality. You can arbitrarily limit the definition beyond its conceptual common denominator to make yourself feel like you can dispense of morality- but then you're just changing the subject.

Do you disagree that you must make decisions in order to live? Do you disagree that your decisions are not make randomly, but instead by reference to a hierarchy of values?

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo What's best for everyone concerned? What's the most constructive thing to do? Those are questions that I care about.

There is no dichotomy between morality and practicality. What is moral is what is most practical.

Quote by: Gorgo Morally superior seems like a way to excuse crimes. Like, "sure we illegally attack other countries, but we do it from a morally superior position." It doesn't wash.

Bad analogy.

That's not an argument against moral judgements. It's an argument against incorrect moral judgements.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Samildanach This is not a sufficent definition. I could say that The principles of logic are a set of values guiding mans decisions. Both are true however I would not inherently call logic equal to morals.

I wouldn't either. That's not what the word "equal" means. The field of ethics is rooted in epistemology. Moral values are derived from logic, but this doesn't mean that logic and morals are the same thing.

[belverron]

Quote by: donkrabbit There is no dichotomy between morality and practicality. What is moral is what is most practical.

That's... a joke. Right?

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I didn't say "a definition of what morals are", I said "a definition of what morals should be". IE, what should a person's morals be? There can't be an answer, of course. That's like asking "what should art be?".

Why are you asking me a question that you've already decided cannot be answered?

In reality (literally), there is an answer to both "What should my values be?" as well as "What should art be?" Of course, that won't stop anybody from deciding that they are questions that should not have answers.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: belverron That's... a joke. Right?

No.

Perhaps you would contribute more to the discussion by phrasing your disagreement in the form of an argument.