If we really believe they had the absolute right to chose their
moral code and if they chose it it was morally right, we would have no
basis to intervene at all.
I think there's plenty of grey area for intervention even if there's no absolute morality.
First of all, we have planetary interest to consider. If what they're doing endangers other countries, then there's a basis for intervention. Human rights abuses cause emigration which causes problems for neighboring countries, for example. Nuclear fallout affects more than just one country, for another.
Secondly, there's the matter of who chose the moral code for them. If they chose that code, that's one thing. If some junta chose it for them, it may not meet our definition of morally right.
I am not the least predisposed to butt into things that are none of my business and, as you know, I don't acknowledge an absolute morality, but I'm sure I could make a case for intervention here and there. Like the slogan says, friends don't let friends drive drunk.
On the other hand, if there were no absolute moral code, would that be so terrible?
Karen |
