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.

[ChaosBorders]

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.

Perhaps, but unless you can find evidence suggesting the study methodology was severely flawed, dismissing it because of personal views the researchers (may or may not) have had is an ad hominem fallacy.

True, but now the claim that America lets people die in the streets has been shown to be a lie.

Did I ever make such a claim?

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.

I would like a source regarding the condemnation by Europeans. Regarding the president, he was overly optimistic, no question. However, that does not mean the stimulus isn’t working. I agree there was stimulus money that certainly was inefficient and unnecessary, but if we manage to avoid a major depression then the package as a whole was worth it. If we don’t, then any good it has done will be wiped out and in retrospect it will have indeed been a mistake. But labeling it as such right now is ignoring its current impact.
I also do not see how you are getting it as adding trillions. The price tag itself of the stimulus packages is only around a trillion, and given a boosted economy causes higher tax receipts the actual cost ends up being far less. So unless basic economic theory has completely turned upside down, you may wish to source where the s in trillions is coming from.

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.

And without regulation you get unscrupulous business tactics, which is what sunk everyone. A completely free market simply does not work. That is not to say regulation is always a good thing either, because it is not, but careful study and observation should be done to figure out what is the most beneficial for the public at large rather than just declaring ‘let the people do what they want,’ no matter what that it is.

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.

It’s a lot harder to recruit people towards a cause that involves hating people who aren’t actually doing anything to yours. “Hey, we attacked them because (insert rhetoric) and they reacted reasonably! You should help us do it again,� is a harder sell than “Hey, we attacked them (insert rhetoric) and then they invaded your country, which had nothing to do with the attack, and accidently killed your cousin, who had nothing to do with the insurgency. You should help us attack the invaders.�

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."

A) I’m a moderate. I endorse liberal policies I think are reasonable. I also endorse conservative policies when I think they are reasonable. Both sides, as far as I can tell, consistently screw up horrendously.
B) You should care whether the world likes us because that’s what effects whether most of the world wants to kill us. Good relations with people and other countries is a much more cost effective method of preventing violence than military force. The reason General Patraeus has ended up in the position he has is that he understands this.

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."

No, we should have entered Afghanistan with overwhelming force, pacified the country in a way that didn’t result in them becoming one of the largest drug distributors on earth, withdrawn most of our forces once it was stable, and left Iraq the hell alone. It still probably would have cost a couple hundred billion, which is still ridiculously expensive, but it would have achieved all of the objectives you want much more effectively and for a fraction of the cost of what we actually did.

Though part of me does think it would be more Christian of me to advocate pacifism (turn the other cheek) and part of me thinks it would be more utilitarian of me to advocate proactively stamping out the cheapest preventable deaths before focusing resources on preventing terrorism even slightly, in reality I am not against all military action. Part of me definitely likes that we have the greatest military on Earth, but I also think we could have the greatest military on Earth with two-thirds of the spending we do on it, and have dramatically lessened NEED for such a military if we didn’t keep pissing off half the planet and actually spent more of the resources helping our fellow human beings.

I also find it ironic that almost no conservatives I’ve met are willing to reduce military spending, despite it being horribly inefficient, while at the same time complaining that the government should cut spending everywhere else with claims of that spending being inefficient.

[Lux]

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.

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.

This is exactly what I was going to say.
Private health insurance is great for those that can afford it, but for those who can't, free emergency care is a poor substitute. If you can't afford to get checked semi-regularly, you're in trouble. I tried to get a routine examination done in Texas. The cost was 480 dollars. Those that can't pay exhuberant costs can't have diseases diagnosed at early stages, and let me tell you that a free ER won't save you if you arrive with a stomachache that turns out to be stage four liver cancer.

As for the OP, even assuming there is such a thing as an objective moral code, I can think of absolutely no set of morals that make the United States of America the most moral nation on Earth. Not a single one, not even the Bible.

Killing innocent civilians, occupying other countries, denying certain prisoners the right to an attorney and a trial (and in some cases, torturing them) are among the reasons why I don't consider the USA government a moral institution.

As a people, I don't find them any more or less moral than those of the other countries I have been to or heard about. There are moral people and immoral people, like everywhere else. There are charities and there are also hate groups. There is tolerance but there's also a lot of racism and discrimination.

I can't imagine by what standard the USA can be considered the most moral nation on Earth.

[Grumpy]

The single most efficient(dollars/care provided)health care system in the US is the Veterans Administration, a government run system.

The second most efficient(by the same standard)is Medicare/Medicaid.

If we took everyone's insurance premiums now going to private companies and put it into these two systems we could provide high quality preventative healthcare(the best kind, efficiency wise) to every person in the US(including illegal emigrants).

It is immoral NOT to do that. The Norway model works very well for both the people and the private companies with 100% coverage.

You are your brother's keeper if you are really a Christian.

Grumpy

[Baron von Gailhard]

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?

As I heard it on the radio, a pornographic movie is produced in the US every 1/2 hour. No other country could come close. And these people aren't even regarded as criminals, like they would be in many other countries.

The US imprisons far more people per capita than any other nations on earth. 715 per 100,000 people. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_p ... per-capita

Even as against a country that is also not known for its sexual morals, Japan, the prisoner population there is only 54 per 100,000 people.

There is remarkably little evidence that the US is a moral nation, generally speaking.

In specific areas however there are good points to be seen, especially in the strenght of its anti-corruption laws.

[ServantofGod]

This is ridiculous. America is one of the least moral nations on the Earth. We have been blessed by God. We are a nation that has been given the ability to come together for the worlds greater goods and fix its needs. America could alone feed the world, yet we don't, and thousands of people starve to death every day. We are a country that is corrupted by materialism and self-centered capitalism. We are teaching the youth that the meaning of life is to get rich and spread your wealth on to your children. In that sense how are we any different from communist China?

[LiamOS]

It's different from communist China in that it's capitalism...

And welcome to the forum.


On that note, why did God bless America? That's not the promised land, and frankly I don't think it can be shown that any particular deity has 'blessed' any specific piece of land.

[realthinker]

This is ridiculous. America is one of the least moral nations on the Earth. We have been blessed by God.

If the US has been blessed by god and is yet one of the least moral of nations, what does that suggest about the potency of god's blessings?

We are a nation that has been given the ability to come together for the worlds greater goods and fix its needs.

Can't you say that about any nation really? We are, after all, just a group of people.

America could alone feed the world, yet we don't, and thousands of people starve to death every day.

I'd like to see you put some numbers behind that suggestion. I think you're simply wrong. How much food does it take to feed the world for a year, and what is the yearly output of US agriculture?

We are a country that is corrupted by materialism and self-centered capitalism.

Corruption is the systematic, purposeful deviation from the proper way of doing business. Please point out some evidence of corruption. I'm not saying it's not there, but I want you to put it in perspective. What corruption do you routinely witness and how is it affecting your life and life in the US in general?

We are teaching the youth that the meaning of life is to get rich and spread your wealth on to your children.

Are you saying that it is not in our interest to invest in the livelihood and prosperity of our children? Shall we put our children at a disadvantage to make a moral point? Do we engage in a contest of withdrawal of our benefits to our children to see which of us can neglect our children the most? God would like that I guess?

In that sense how are we any different from communist China?

Please spend some time to offer a little compare and contrast please. On what attributes are you basing your claim of similarity? I think it's mostly on the degree of your feelings of dissatisfaction rather than any true measure.

To put it in short terms, skip the hyperbole and make a point with some substance.

[palmera]

Can a "nation" be moral? How do you define nation in this sense? It's not as though Americans are one people, although saying so makes for beautiful rhetoric. Is it even moral to couch morality in terms of nationalism? I don't think there is such a thing as a "moral nation" or even a "moral society" except in a most general and unhelpful sense.

[McCulloch]

Can a "nation" be moral?

Surely the level of morality of a nation could be measurable or at least estimable. Are the poor and needy taken care of? Is the government trusted and trustworthy? Do the citizens feel safe? ...

[palmera]

Can a "nation" be moral?

Surely the level of morality of a nation could be measurable or at least estimable. Are the poor and needy taken care of? Is the government trusted and trustworthy? Do the citizens feel safe? ...

A nation is a placeholder, not an actual moral agent. These measurements are certainly helpful for analyzing how effectively, even morally a nation's government functions, but does that mean the whole populous should be defined by those in power?

I think there are some very basic data you could use to look at the effectiveness of governments over time at reducing human suffering and increasing human well being. But are we only talking about that nation's citizens, or it's neighbors also? If nation X takes great care of its citizens to the detriment of those around it, how more or less moral is that nation than one whose government takes adequate care of it's citizens basic needs, and doesn't unduly burden it's neighbors?