Is the US the most moral nation on earth?

[Scotracer]

In the debate between himself and Abraxas, WinePusher stated the following with regards to the United States of America:

We are morally superior to every other country

Post 18

Is this the case?

How would we define the most moral nation?

By extension: where do the other countries around the world rank in terms of morality?

PS: BTW, the debate between those two is a very good read but it has to be said, Abraxas is winning by far at the time of writing this.

[Slopeshoulder]

Underlying the whole premise of this thread is that there is an objective measure of morality. There simply isn't. Morality is a social compulsion on the members of a particular group. One person's morality doesn't apply outside of the group with which the individual identifies. That group with which one identifies fluctuates with the circumstances. Today I might be a happy universal humanist and all men are my brethren, all worthy of the best we can manage of our little world. When a man decides to advance himself at the expense of me and my family they've cast themselves out of my happy group and they are apart, no longer worthy of my respect and my good will. When one threatens the stability and viability of my community, the community decides that this person might be apart from our community, and that it is now moral that we take from them their freedom or their life.

There can be no "more moral" that is meaningful on an arbitrary scale. Morality is graduated according to the circumstance and the group to which you wish to be associated.

Is empathy not a foundation of a universal morality, agreed to by everyone from biologists to psychologists to philosophers to theologians? Is your post not privileging an outdated sociobiological definition?

[Abraxas]

The most moral nation on Earth would certainly not have a private healthcare system

Considering the United States Constitution does not grant the government the power to regulate healthcare, it isn't their job. Private sector companies always do better than govenrment run institutions. Injecting the government into the equation does not make it all better.

That is a red herring. Whether it is in the constitution or not is an entirely separate question from whether a society is more moral if has a public health system. The only connection is it may be that our constitution prevents us from having the most moral system.

Further, I suggest you look into Walter Reed Medical Center to see the difference between government health care and private, this being a noteworthy location that was victimized by privatization.

[LiamOS]

Considering the United States Constitution does not grant the government the power to regulate healthcare, it isn't their job.

Then they should hurry up and make it their job.

Private sector companies always do better than govenrment run institutions.

Which is why a combination is best.

Injecting the government into the equation does not make it all better.

It does for those who can't afford healthcare.

I agree, if the United States sent in an army to kill people because they disagreed with us, that would be wrong.

Good.

blow up buildings, and kill innocence.

What do you think the USMC does?

But hey, if a crazy guy is coming at you with a knife, you shouldn't defend yourself, you should try talking it out with them in a diplomatic fashion cause reasoning with crazy people always works.

Perhaps defending ones country would be more appropriate than plunging another into war and attempting to kill all those who stand up to it...

[ChaosBorders]

Considering the United States Constitution does not grant the government the power to regulate healthcare, it isn't their job.

Tens of thousands of Americans die yearly from the lack of health care. That it is 'not their job' is precisely why people label the US immoral on this issue.

Private sector companies always do better than govenrment run institutions. Injecting the government into the equation does not make it all better.

I work for a private company. It is fairly profitable. It is also extremely inefficient. Private companies are also responsible for the current economic crisis. The idea "private = inherently better" is faulty. One example is the school system. Some of the very best and the very worst schools are public. Private schools tend to be in the middle. Just because it is public does not make it bad. (Doesn't make it good either, but claiming private ALWAYS does better is completely false).

I agree, if the United States sent in an army to kill people because they disagreed with us, that would be wrong. But we are not doing that, what we are doing, along with the Europeans, is fighting terrorism. If the Islamic Extremists peacefully voiced their disagreements with the west, thats fine. But they don't, they hijack planes, blow up buildings, and kill innocence. But hey, if a crazy guy is coming at you with a knife, you shouldn't defend yourself, you should try talking it out with them in a diplomatic fashion cause reasoning with crazy people always works.

And we kill plenty of innocent people too. Last I checked (which was like 5 years ago, so I'm sure the number has increased) we were at well over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis as collateral damage. In addition, the amount of money we've spent on this war is about a trillion with trillions in additional economic costs. Far more than enough to end world hunger, thirst, most serious disease, etc. saving millions upon millions of lives. Why? Because a few extremists killed a few thousand people and we got scared...which is what they wanted, so basically they won. The ironic thing? Smokers in the US kill 50,000 non smokers a year. Where's our war on smokers? They're way more a threat to my health than terrorists are.

[realthinker]

Underlying the whole premise of this thread is that there is an objective measure of morality. There simply isn't. Morality is a social compulsion on the members of a particular group. One person's morality doesn't apply outside of the group with which the individual identifies. That group with which one identifies fluctuates with the circumstances. Today I might be a happy universal humanist and all men are my brethren, all worthy of the best we can manage of our little world. When a man decides to advance himself at the expense of me and my family they've cast themselves out of my happy group and they are apart, no longer worthy of my respect and my good will. When one threatens the stability and viability of my community, the community decides that this person might be apart from our community, and that it is now moral that we take from them their freedom or their life.

There can be no "more moral" that is meaningful on an arbitrary scale. Morality is graduated according to the circumstance and the group to which you wish to be associated.

Is empathy not a foundation of a universal morality, agreed to by everyone from biologists to psychologists to philosophers to theologians?

It might be the foundation, but it still only applies to those to whom we choose to apply it. Do you empathize with a serial killer to the degree that you don't believe that it's moral to remove someone like that from your community?

Is your post not privileging an outdated sociobiological definition?

You seem to think so. Please support that notion with a few more words.

[WinePusher]

Whether it is in the constitution or not is an entirely separate question from whether a society is more moral if has a public health system.

To say that the government has the power to regulate heathcare is to go aganist the political philosophy of John Stuart Mill, Ayn Rand, Plato, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau, John Locke, and every single United States framer. The french enlightenment class of political philosophers realize that it is immoral for a state to run healthcare.

The only connection is it may be that our constitution prevents us from having the most moral system.

Do you take this position. Frankly, a limited and small government is always better for the people.

Further, I suggest you look into Walter Reed Medical Center to see the difference between government health care and private, this being a noteworthy location that was victimized by privatization.

Actually, I think it would be better to look at the healthcare of Britain and Canada to gain insight into what government run healthcare is like. And those countries have great quality because many of their leaders come to America for healthcare. Having the government act as your insurance provider, having access to medical records, deciding which treatments you can get, intruding on patient-doctor confidentiality and providing "end of life" counseling is not moral.

[WinePusher]

Tens of thousands of Americans die yearly from the lack of health care. That it is 'not their job' is precisely why people label the US immoral on this issue.

No, they really don't. It's certainly a nice liberal tlaking point and definitly instills fear in americans, but it is a lie. The fact that we have emergency rooms and a medical ethics code that is based off of the hypocratic oath. If people die because of lack of healthcare, they did not seek it. If they sought care, they would have got it.

One example is the school system. Some of the very best and the very worst schools are public. Private schools tend to be in the middle. Just because it is public does not make it bad. (Doesn't make it good either, but claiming private ALWAYS does better is completely false).

Public Schools are failing. Plain and simple, nobody educational theorists (besides the pentagon bomber and weather undergroun terrorist who has been assimiliated back into society and teaches at a university) believes that our public schools are some of our best schools. Private schools have always superceeded public schools, that is an indisputable fact.

Lets take other examples, I much prefer Kinko's or UPS to the post office. The creation of that private sector company has all but put the government run post office out of businees. It's a matter of time before a privatized form of the DMV puts the governmetn run DMV out of businees.

And we kill plenty of innocent people too. Last I checked (which was like 5 years ago, so I'm sure the number has increased) we were at well over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis as collateral damage.

Yes, we have unintentionally killed civilians because Al-Qaeda engages in guerrilla warfare and hides behind civilians. Very different from intentionally flying planes into buildings because a sect of people disagree with your holy book and religion.

In addition, the amount of money we've spent on this war is about a trillion with trillions in additional economic costs.

And we've spent over a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus package. The difference is that a primary role of government is to appropriate spending for national security and to keep a well maintained militia, not to regulate wall street, bailout companies and inject themselves into the free market.

Far more than enough to end world hunger, thirst, most serious disease, etc. saving millions upon millions of lives. Why? Because a few extremists killed a few thousand people and we got scared...

We also have several London subway bombings, a hotel bombing in India, attempted attacks in Time Square, and terrorist car bombings in Iraq. But by all means, lets just let this country sit back and just continue to be attacked. These terrorists can keep sending in one plane after another into our buildings and the left would have us do nothing. Well, even the most liberal president realizes that we have to continue to fight, Barack Obama, the messiah of the left, realizes that the wars must continue and that we must proactively fight terrorist organizations.

which is what they wanted, so basically they won.

The terrorists attacked us so we would, in turn, attack them back.....And they won because we are not going to ignore their actions but are tryint to eliminate them. I'd say they would have won if the Liberals had it their way and did nothing. Because we certainly were doing nothing before 9/11, and we had a pre 9/11 mentality, and look what happened. 9/11 was a wake up call, unfortunatly liberals are heavy sleepers.

[Abraxas]

Whether it is in the constitution or not is an entirely separate question from whether a society is more moral if has a public health system.

To say that the government has the power to regulate heathcare is to go aganist the political philosophy of John Stuart Mill, Ayn Rand, Plato, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau, John Locke, and every single United States framer. The french enlightenment class of political philosophers realize that it is immoral for a state to run healthcare.

If Ayn Rand is against it it must be a good idea. As for the others, firstly, I would ask you to cite it, and secondly, so what? Why should we as a society blindly bind ourselves to the ideas of people dead for 200 years or 2000 years instead of thinking for ourselves? Let John Locke be against it, he is dead, he never saw this world, he never saw the effects of private health care in the modern world, nor a public system and so his opinion matters little. The long dead should not govern us so that we abandon reason in favor of hero worship.

The only connection is it may be that our constitution prevents us from having the most moral system.

Do you take this position. Frankly, a limited and small government is always better for the people.

Norway disagrees. Evidence suggests they are right.

Further, I suggest you look into Walter Reed Medical Center to see the difference between government health care and private, this being a noteworthy location that was victimized by privatization.

Actually, I think it would be better to look at the healthcare of Britain and Canada to gain insight into what government run healthcare is like. And those countries have great quality because many of their leaders come to America for healthcare. Having the government act as your insurance provider, having access to medical records, deciding which treatments you can get, intruding on patient-doctor confidentiality and providing "end of life" counseling is not moral.

I would rather have the government do all of the above instead of an insurance company with profit motive to deny me any care at all.

No, they really don't. It's certainly a nice liberal tlaking point and definitly instills fear in americans, but it is a lie. The fact that we have emergency rooms and a medical ethics code that is based off of the hypocratic oath. If people die because of lack of healthcare, they did not seek it. If they sought care, they would have got it.

This is a falsehood.

The fact of the matter is, in the US alone, more people will die in one week of preventable illness than have died in the past decade from terrorism according to the World Health Organization.

If we had a 9/11 attack every week, the conservatives would be hysterical, rightly so. But when as many die from lack of access to adequate health care, well, better to die and decrease the surplus population, eh?

[ChaosBorders]

Tens of thousands of Americans die yearly from the lack of health care. That it is 'not their job' is precisely why people label the US immoral on this issue.

No, they really don't. It's certainly a nice liberal tlaking point and definitly instills fear in americans, but it is a lie. The fact that we have emergency rooms and a medical ethics code that is based off of the hypocratic oath. If people die because of lack of healthcare, they did not seek it. If they sought care, they would have got it.

Yeah, because Harvard is known for being oh so very liberal in their studies and they're certainly not the only ones.

Emergency rooms don't screen for cancer, they aren't effective at preventing diseases only at treating you when you're about to drop dead, which is often too late, and ironically it usually costs more than just preventing the problem in the first place.

Public Schools are failing. Plain and simple, nobody educational theorists (besides the pentagon bomber and weather undergroun terrorist who has been assimiliated back into society and teaches at a university) believes that our public schools are some of our best schools.

A lot of them aren't. The system as a whole definitely needs an overhaul. But you said private is ALWAYS better than public. Not true. I go to the University of Texas at Austin, a public college, and it is #1 in the nation for accounting. It's also much, much higher in a wide range of fields than most private schools. A comparison of the scores of 8th graders for the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that on average private schools did a little better on reading and no different on math than public schools. In addition to this, it found that conservative christian private schools did no different reading and actually did WORSE on the math.

Private schools have always superceeded public schools, that is an indisputable fact.

Just got disputed. Some private schools do a lot better than a lot of public schools. Some public schools do a lot better than more private schools. There is significant overlap and ignoring that to just pretend private = better hinders the ability to actually fix the school system in the areas where it needs to be fixed.

Lets take other examples, I much prefer Kinko's or UPS to the post office. The creation of that private sector company has all but put the government run post office out of businees.

That and the government tries to subsidize the cost of mail so lower income people can still afford to send some. But I'm not arguing that public is always better, just the private isn't always and assuming that it is is faulty. There are plenty of areas where private companies do do well and that's a good thing.

It's a matter of time before a privatized form of the DMV puts the governmetn run DMV out of businees.

That I certainly wouldn't mind seeing.

And we kill plenty of innocent people too. Last I checked (which was like 5 years ago, so I'm sure the number has increased) we were at well over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis as collateral damage.

Yes, we have unintentionally killed civilians because Al-Qaeda engages in guerrilla warfare and hides behind civilians. Very different from intentionally flying planes into buildings because a sect of people disagree with your holy book and religion.

I'm pretty sure the 100,000 civilian casualties don't really care why when our bombs blew them up.

And we've spent over a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus package. The difference is that a primary role of government is to appropriate spending for national security and to keep a well maintained militia, not to regulate wall street, bailout companies and inject themselves into the free market.

You assume it's failed. Almost every major economist I've read is of the opinion it kept us from going into a great depression that would have seen us with 25% unemployment rate. Many of them are of the opinion that it may have only delayed that, so if we do go into a great depression I'll agree it failed and was a complete waste of money. But until then I'm siding with my economics professor, who though very nervous about it, explained in great detail that much of it should be recouped in additional tax revenue from keeping the economy from collapsing. Whereas the war spending ultimately hurts the economy at large and costs additional trillions in subsidiary effects.

As to injecting themselves into the free market, it was private industry that screwed up everything in the first place. If government had injected itself more to begin with they could have prevented the sheer idiocy that took place.

We also have several London subway bombings, a hotel bombing in India, attempted attacks in Time Square, and terrorist car bombings in Iraq. But by all means, lets just let this country sit back and just continue to be attacked. These terrorists can keep sending in one plane after another into our buildings and the left would have us do nothing. Well, even the most liberal president realizes that we have to continue to fight, Barack Obama, the messiah of the left, realizes that the wars must continue and that we must proactively fight terrorist organizations.

Yes, now that we're in them I agree it would be foolish to completely cut and run, especially in Afghanistan. I even agree going to war with Afghanistan was a reasonable decision. If they had done to Afghanistan what they did to Iraq we would have been done with major operations within a year and had most of our troops back home within two. It's not just that they started a secondary, unnecessary war, it's that they almost completely and totally botched the one actually worth fighting, sending the cost of both skyrocketing.

The terrorists attacked us so we would, in turn, attack them back.....And they won because we are not going to ignore their actions but are tryint to eliminate them. I'd say they would have won if the Liberals had it their way and did nothing. Because we certainly were doing nothing before 9/11, and we had a pre 9/11 mentality, and look what happened. 9/11 was a wake up call, unfortunatly liberals are heavy sleepers.

They won because they got an overreaction that has cost enough money to save hundreds of thousands of American lives or tens of millions of others. They won because our wars, despite having killed many of them, have also been used as an effective recruiting tool to gain even more. They won because rather than being a beacon of light, peace, and hope our country has become more of a reactionary military complex that until Obama's election went from loved to being hated across the globe. They won because we let a tragedy that killed a few thousand people, a fraction of the preventable deaths we have every single year in this country, completely define us as a nation in a way that I would be amazed if we ever recover from.

They are terrorists. They win when we are afraid. And we have acted out of fear of them. So yes, they've won.

[WinePusher]

Yeah, because Harvard is known for being oh so very liberal in their studies and they're certainly not the only ones.

Yes, Harvard along with most universities out their, are home to liberal marxist professors. Now, I will take your Reuters source seriously, but as for the NY Post and Kirsten Powers, maybe a more objective source from a more objective author would be more convincing.

Emergency rooms don't screen for cancer, they aren't effective at preventing diseases only at treating you when you're about to drop dead, which is often too late, and ironically it usually costs more than just preventing the problem in the first place.

True, but now the claim that America lets people die in the streets has been shown to be a lie. The healthcare system does need to be reformed, but there are other ways than throwing the government elitists into the mix.

A lot of them aren't. The system as a whole definitely needs an overhaul. But you said private is ALWAYS better than public. Not true. I go to the University of Texas at Austin, a public college, and it is #1 in the nation for accounting. It's also much, much higher in a wide range of fields than most private schools. A

Well, I was not spekaing in regards to universities. That may be one area where public exceeds private, but it could be because the government didn't force you to go to UTA. You had the choice to go to another school, so universities must compete with one another, and competition "makes things better."

You assume it's failed. Almost every major economist I've read is of the opinion it kept us from going into a great depression that would have seen us with 25% unemployment rate.

Here is what the president said, if this passes unemployment will not go higher than 8%. He was either lying, or the package did not do what it was expected to do. Now, we are facing a possible double dip recession in liu of this stimulus package and it added trillions to the deficit. We're even being condemned by the Europeans for this imoral Keynesian/Krugmann spending.

As to injecting themselves into the free market, it was private industry that screwed up everything in the first place. If government had injected itself more to begin with they could have prevented the sheer idiocy that took place.

No, the idea that the market should be free from government intervention and regulation is the key doctrine of capitalism. Let the people do what they want, and let them suceed or fail on their own, what, you want Obama to cap the amount of income someone can make? He clearly thinks that some people make to much money, well, I think this President takes to much vacation time, but I don't have a right to stop him cause this is a free land.

Yes, now that we're in them I agree it would be foolish to completely cut and run, especially in Afghanistan. I even agree going to war with Afghanistan was a reasonable decision. If they had done to Afghanistan what they did to Iraq we would have been done with major operations within a year and had most of our troops back home within two. It's not just that they started a secondary, unnecessary war, it's that they almost completely and totally botched the one actually worth fighting, sending the cost of both skyrocketing.

Good, I'm happy we can agree on something.

They won because they got an overreaction that has cost enough money to save hundreds of thousands of American lives or tens of millions of others. They won because our wars, despite having killed many of them, have also been used as an effective recruiting tool to gain even more.

The wars are a recruitment tool, Gitmo is a recruitment tool, if we didn't retaliate, our pacifiscm would have been used as a recruitment tool.

They won because rather than being a beacon of light, peace, and hope our country has become more of a reactionary military complex that until Obama's election went from loved to being hated across the globe.

You see, this is why the liberal mentality is so strange to me. I do not care if the Muslims don't love us, I don't care whether the rest of the world likes us, but thats all Obama and his liberal friends seem to care about. Apologizing for America in Cairo, not speaking out in favor of democratic protests in Iran, telling NASA to make muslims feel good about themselves; it isn't is job to make friends with everybody. It's is job to protect the lives of the people he is government, and the military has brought about more peace than the so called "peace activists" and "code pinkers."

They won because we let a tragedy that killed a few thousand people, a fraction of the preventable deaths we have every single year in this country, completely define us as a nation in a way that I would be amazed if we ever recover from.

So we should have done nothing. We should have just forgave Osama Bin Laden, become more Sharia Compliant, and sit back and keep taking slaps to the face? :slap: The fact that the death toll was not as high as some would like does not matter. If one person was killed in the name of Jihad, if one person was killed in the name of terror, we still should fight the savages to the ends of the earth. One does not willingly permitt evil to exist and spawn and still be the "beacon of light to the world."