|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jul 9, 2008 21:12
|
| |
|
| | 11 Comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jul 10, 2008 00:11
On Jul 9, 9:12 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
Would it involve shoving Hemlock down Socrates throat?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: TimTim Date: Jul 10, 2008 03:50
Given the legal status of :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
And the fact that there is no one right way to define moral, then it seems
to me that countries should mind there own damn business.
The U.S.'s claiming to democratize Iraq amounts to a breach of international
law, i.e. a breach of Iraqi sovereignty. I see no issue if one country
invites the aid of another, but w/ out such an invitation any external
intervention amounts to a breach of international law. Democratic countries
depend, in part, on the recognition and upholding of the law. How democratic
can they be said to be if they go around the world breaking the law?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: EdEd Date: Jul 10, 2008 07:59
On Jul 10, 12:12 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
I don't think so. If there were such a moral reponsibility it would be
because democracy was "right" and other systems "wrong" and/or because
democracy was better for the people.
It seems to me that the same arguments can apply to a theocracy. It's
"right" and it's better for the people in that it promotes correct
behaviour so saving their immortal souls, surely a crucial goal.
I support democracy in having democracy. Let the people of a nation
decide for themselves if they want democracy. I realize that tyrants
try to prevent this and that there are other difficulties as well, but
in the end I don't think we should dictate to a nation's people what
form of government they should have.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jul 10, 2008 10:56
On Jul 10, 6:50 am, "Tim" q.con> wrote:> "turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:27a1b37d-5c41-4da2-8a34-91123853ff6b@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> Should nations have a moral responsibility to spread democracy>> worldwide?
>
>
> Given the legal status of : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
>
> And the fact that there is no one right way to define moral, then it seems
> to me that countries should mind there own damn business.
>
> The U.S.'s claiming to democratize Iraq amounts to a breach of international
> law, i.e. a breach of Iraqi sovereignty. I see no issue if one country
> invites the aid of another, but w/ out such an invitation any external
> intervention amounts to a breach of international law. Democratic countries
> depend, in part, on the recognition and upholding of the law. How democratic
> can they be said to be if they go around the world breaking the law? ...
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jul 10, 2008 14:03
On Jul 10, 1:56 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:> On Jul 10, 6:50 am, "Tim" q.con> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> "turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message>
>>news:27a1b37d-5c41-4da2-8a34-91123853ff6b@ 27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> Should nations have a moral responsibility to spread democracy >>> worldwide?
>
>
>
>> And the fact that there is no one right way to define moral, then it seems
>> to me that countries should mind there own damn business.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jul 10, 2008 18:12
> Should nations have a moral responsibility to spread democracy
> worldwide?
No, although they have such an obligation to overthrow governments which
fail to respect individual rights, whether democratic or not, as do all
moral agents.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jul 10, 2008 18:59
On Jul 10, 5:11 pm, Shrikeb...@ gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 9, 9:12 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>>> Should nations have a moral responsibility to spread democracy
>> worldwide?
>
>
> Would it involve shoving Hemlock down Socrates throat?
You wouldnt have to. He would (and did) take it willingly.
BOfL
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jul 10, 2008 19:01
On Jul 10, 8:50 pm, "Tim" q.con> wrote:> "turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:27a1b37d-5c41-4da2-8a34-91123853ff6b@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> Should nations have a moral responsibility to spread democracy>> worldwide?
>
>
> Given the legal status of : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
>
> And the fact that there is no one right way to define moral, then it seems
> to me that countries should mind there own damn business.
>
> The U.S.'s claiming to democratize Iraq amounts to a breach of international
> law, i.e. a breach of Iraqi sovereignty. I see no issue if one country
> invites the aid of another, but w/ out such an invitation any external
> intervention amounts to a breach of international law. Democratic countries
> depend, in part, on the recognition and upholding of the law. How democratic
> can they be said to be if they go around the world breaking the law? ...
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Jul 11, 2008 06:52
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:12:36 -0700, turtoni wrote:
> Should nations have a moral responsibility to spread democracy
> worldwide?
If you have to 'spread' it, it ain't democracy. Money? nah, has nothing
to do with it.
Funny how most people who love spreading democracy worldwide have very
little desire to even learn the language of those so in need. It is also
strange that so much destruction and death comes with this spreading.
This given certainty that the US or any country in the West is a
democracy is nothing more than a fairy tale. The best place to spread
democracy is at home.
A re-worked notion of the 'white mans burden'. Burdened by virtue one has
a moral duty to 'spread' this virtue to all the lessers of the world. If
only everyone was like us we wouldn't have to kill so many people.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
