We only stand for good if we set the example that says so.
In domestic concerns, people are angry at criminals, but they are very angry at criminal police officers and other forms of corruption by community leaders. Why? Because criminality in those expected to enforce the law and lead the community is more dangerous and corrosive to civilization. Why should international concerns be any different?
When we allow the worst to set the standard, the standard becomes so low as to be meaningless. If we only have to be "better than them", what kind of a standard is that?
You have no problem setting a high standard for education, and that standard should be high. Moral behavior on the international stage and honoring treaty obligations, on the other hand, are only to be held to a high standard if they support the neocon policy book. Is political advantage what it comes down to, in the end?
Flame » in reply to Smoothly done, Robert...
We *should* know better.
The whole thread (78 posts)
- Reactions
- Moral equivalency
- "Civilization won't stand long when when the self-proclaimed good guys use war as an excuse to take a holiday from civilization"
- And our side won't last long when we're the only ones using a rule book.
- "The soft nihilism of low expectations"
- Smoothly done, Robert...
- One for the road...
- We *should* know better.
- "the people in the marches have a deep and abiding hostility to the West and its values."
- The right-wing reaction to the story was faster.
- re: Nations
- Revisionist history of the highest order.
- Heh, heh. Phony point.
- Moral equivalency