Here's the problem I have with arguments about "Who is Evil", or, for that
matter, claims of "moral superiority":
While I'm not a postmodernist by any means, there is a *tremendous* amount
of "wiggle room" in the definition of "moral", and different individuals
will always interpret it differently. F'rinstance, John Giorgis considers
himself a moral person, by his own standards. Let a hard-line member of a
fundamentalist Shiite community judge John, and John is quite possibly going
to come out as a very immoral, decadent western pawn of the Great Satan.
(Note: this is for illustrative purposes only, and in no way represents my
personal feelings regarding Islam or John Giorgis).
I think that, before claims of moral superiority are bandied about, we might
want to determine which moral standards are being used.
Off the top of my head, here's some of my questions on the list of behaviors
for nations:
(1) Are elections free and open to adult citizens of this nation?
Specifically, are the polls accessible, are the ballots clearly marked, is a
reasonable effort made to ensure that citizens are allowed to vote without
undue pressure for the candidates of their choice?
(2) Is legitimate political opposition (that is, non-violent) permitted
within this country? To extend this, are the citizens of this nation
permitted free speech (barring libel, slander and copyright theft), action
(within limits that I am willing to discuss) and movement (no internal
passports, etc).
(3) Is punishment for crimes humane and rational? Are the accused allowed
to mount a defense in court, are they afforded specific protections similar
to those covered in the US Constitution, and is the death penalty (if used)
applied fairly and rarely?
(4) Is David Hasselhoff regarded as a serious artist, and are his movies and
television shows regarded as being of "good quality" by more than 10% of the
population?
Some food for thought and discussion, I hope.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
