Re: Should nations have a moral responsibility to spread democracy worldwide?
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: Should nations have a moral responsibility to spread democracy worldwide?         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: turtoni
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?
>
>>> Lets assume that by democracy we mean:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
>
>> 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?
>
> "Wars sanctioned by the UN Security Council: when the United Nations
> as a whole acts as a body against a certain nation. Examples include
> various peacekeeping operations around the world."

the "should mind there own damn business" platitude i believe stems
from the personification of action.

lets imagine a neighbour two doors down was abusing their children
wouldn't it be immoral to not intervene?

of course we own and use stuff from immoral regimes. it's in our
interest to be immoral in this fashion.

"Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational,
brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his
own interests are involved - that about sums it up. I'm interested in
the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of
him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of
the nature of man is probably doomed to failure." - stan kubrick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

"Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching
a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same
virtues oneself. For example, a teacher telling students they should
not plagiarize, while secretly being a plagiarist himself. Hypocrisy
is frequently invoked as an accusation in many contexts.

For linguist and social analyst Noam Chomsky, hypocrisy, defined as
the refusal to "...apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to
others" is one of the central evils of our societ
--promoting
injustices such as war and social inequalities in a framework of self-
deception, which includes the notion that hypocrisy itself is a
necessary or beneficial part of human behavior and society."
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!