The recent events in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the
earlier dust-up in Kosovo have prompted me to wonder if there is any
philosophically justifiable moral ground for judging when a territiory
or its inhabitants ought to be free to determine their own government
and destiny and when its appropriate for small (or large) territories
to be administered by a central government even when some, maybe even
a majority, wish to be separate.

In this country we fought a bitter civil war to enforce the principal
that secession was not allowable, but we have also fought for the
right of Kosovo to secede from Serbia. Of course it’s pointless to
draw moral lessons from the actions of governments, governments are
rarely consistent.

The temptation is to just say that any group has the right to self
determination but that leads to very complex questions. Does it the
group have to be a certain size? What if a small town in Texas with a
predominantly latino population wanted to secede? What if, like South
Ossetia, they wanted to join another country, say, Mexico?

I’ve not been able to come up with a self consistent set of moral
guidelines here; any ideas?

On Aug 14, 4:47 pm, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:

On Aug 14, 11:03 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:

On Aug 14, 1:47 pm, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:

On Aug 14, 4:47 pm, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:47:42 -0700, Ed wrote:

Yes. to be consistent you must be dealing with a consistent.

"self-determination" is a 'moral' standard however when speaking in terms
of a group/state, this 'self' becomes a little shaky.

For instance, in order to understand or know what 'self-determination' is
to a group, there must be a near flawless method of polling that group.

If the leader of the group says 'we want' does he automatically speak for
the rest of the group? How was that leader elected or was he elected?
Is he getting money to say one thing or another?

So..

You answer your own question correctly, I think.

On Aug 14, 4:47 pm, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:

On Aug 15, 5:23 am, Cormagh yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 15, 10:39 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:

Ed earthlink.net> wrote in news:df27d4c6-d98e-4aff-905b-
cd04bd26c8f5@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

Moral arguments apply only to moral agents, i.e., persons. They do not
apply to States, territories, or other collections of persons, except to
the extent they apply to the persons comprising those collectives.

So the question resolves to, What, if anything, might justify one person
exercising authority or control over another? What might justify a
commissar in Moscow exercising control over a farmer in Georgia? Or a
bureaucrat in Washington exercising authority or control over a farmer in
Texas?

"Divine right" has presumably been abandoned as a credible justification.
What has replaced it?