Are Americans Morally Superior?

[Revoltingest]

You wish!

You can do better than wasting our time like this, Revolt.

I notice that you avoided alerting me to your response.
I just happened upon it. Trying to get in a last dig
without a response to it?
Anyway, wasting time is what RF is all about.
So when you try to make evil a strictly partisan affair,
know that I'm here to help broaden your view.
Genocide Joe has a record of evil that precedes
his Presidency.

 

[libre]

Here's a site which might put some perspective on the question: Twentieth Century Atlas - Historical Body Count

That site seems to make some creative choices to minimize the nazi holocaust.

For some reason they have decided to bundle in Holocaust deaths with world war 2 deaths generally, while they have decided to report the Soviet Holodomor deaths in their own category.

If one scrolls down to read what he has to say about the Native-American genocide the author works to deny blame and deflect for settlers that weaponized disease:

Think of it this way: if the Europeans had arrived with the most benign intentions and behaved like perfect guests, or for that matter, if Aztec sailors had been the ones to discover Europe instead of vice versa, then the Indians would still have been exposed to unfamiliar diseases and the population would still have been scythed by massive epidemics, but we'd just lump it into the same category as the Black Death, i.e. bad luck. (Curiously, the Black Death was brought to Europe by the Mongols. Should we blame them for it? And while we're tossing blame around willy-nilly, aren't the Native Americans responsible for introducing tobacco to the world -- and for the 90 million deaths which followed?)

 

[Debater Slayer]

And it is not in me to forgive people from voting for Trump once. Votes are meaningful events with lasting consequences. They demand reason and responsibility.

In hindsight, I believe that the choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton with the record of both up to 2016 was far from easy or straightforward, if one takes into account each candidate's overall platform. Domestically, I think Clinton was definitely the lesser evil, but if one includes foreign policy in the picture, her conspicuous hawkishness could not be overlooked. She had supported war and threatened more of it even after seeing how catastrophic such policies had been in the then-near past.

In the case of many voters, I see voting for Trump in 2020 as far different from voting for him in 2016. I also try to take into account people's intentions or what they believed they were voting for, whether or not they ended up being right in their assessment of each candidate.

Realistically, would I condemn someone who voted for Trump in 2016 if their main or sole reason for that vote was that they found Hillary more hawkish back then and wanted to avoid more war and unnecessary death, or would I instead acknowledge that the intention to prevent more war was good but point out that Trump turned out to be a hawk too?

I would prefer the latter, but of course, I also realize that many voted for Trump because his prejudices matched theirs, and then many also voted for him in 2020 after he had shown himself to be just as hawkish as many of his predecessors. This is where individual consideration of a voter's intentions and of the information (or misinformation, in many cases) they were working with comes in.

 

[LuisDantas]

Any reminders on this hawkishness of Hillary? It seems to have evaded my notice.

It must have been quite terrible indeed if it somehow convinced anyone to hesitate when the alternative was Trump.

Sorry, but there never was and there never will be any excuse for supporting Trump, let alone voting for him.

 

[Eddi]

Are Americans morally superior to those of other nations?

No nationality is "morally superior" to any other nationality, it doesn't work like that

 

[Debater Slayer]

Any reminders on this hawkishness of Hillary? It seems to have evaded my notice.

It must have been quite terrible indeed if it somehow convinced anyone to hesitate when the alternative was Trump.

It was indeed terrible, and it contributed, along with many other politicians' voices, to over half a million deaths, drone strikes, and expanded use of torture. She supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and she supported the use of drones in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

The article below explores her hawkish legacy in more detail, but it is a long read. Nonetheless, when I read about what she supported and the catastrophic policies to which she contributed, I find myself viewing the voting dilemma of 2016 much differently. I can see why some people find her incomparable to Trump when the discussion is strictly about domestic policies, but I look at the amount of death and destruction she and other politicians like her have caused overseas and don't see a "good vs. evil" situation. In my opinion, both she and Trump were abominable choices; just for very different reasons—until 2020, at least, when Trump had proven himself to be similarly hawkish.

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk (Published 2016)

Throughout her career she has displayed instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama — and most Democrats.

www.nytimes.com

Sorry, but there never was and there never will be any excuse for supporting Trump, let alone voting for him.

Voting for a terrible candidate sometimes doesn't require support for them; just enough rejection of the other one. I think that one could ask whether there would be any excuse for supporting or voting for a candidate who preferred policies that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but that question is largely moot when asked in a vacuum. The alternative is a crucial part of the question, and in 2016, I believe that good reasons existed to vote against either candidate. Part of it arguably had to do with one's priorities more than any absolute right or wrong, since both candidates had particularly awful records, but in different areas.

 

[Revoltingest]

In hindsight, I believe that the choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton with the record of both up to 2016 was far from easy or straightforward, if one takes into account each candidate's overall platform. Domestically, I think Clinton was definitely the lesser evil, but if one includes foreign policy in the picture, her conspicuous hawkishness could not be overlooked. She had supported war and threatened more of it even after seeing how catastrophic such policies had been in the then-near past.

In the case of many voters, I see voting for Trump in 2020 as far different from voting for him in 2016. I also try to take into account people's intentions or what they believed they were voting for, whether or not they ended up being right in their assessment of each candidate.

2016 Trump had no political record.
2020 Trump had a record in office.
So you're correct that voting calculations would differ.

Realistically, would I condemn someone who voted for Trump in 2016 if their main or sole reason for that vote was that they found Hillary more hawkish back then and wanted to avoid more war and unnecessary death, or would I instead acknowledge that the intention to prevent more war was good but point out that Trump turned out to be a hawk too?

"turned out to be" means this was information that
existed in 2020, but not in 2016. I suggest that your
support for Hillary & Biden (as the only alternatives
with any chance of winning) put you in no position
to condemn any who voted for Trump.
Your lesser of 2 evil calculation might differ from
others', but you still supported evil....understandably.
Read that not as criticism, but instead as a call for
more tolerance towards different voting preferences.

I would prefer the latter, but of course, I also realize that many voted for Trump because his prejudices matched theirs, and then many also voted for him in 2020 after he had shown himself to be just as hawkish as many of his predecessors. This is where individual consideration of a voter's intentions and of the information (or misinformation, in many cases) they were working with comes in.

One should continually consider new information,
Loyalty should be to one's values, not to candidates.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

No

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, but there never was and there never will be any excuse for supporting Trump, let alone voting for him.

If you were more familiar with the candidates & issues,
you might understand the dilemma. Instead, all you
have is loathing of Trump. To give the matter so little
thought, but to have such certainty in your choice, &
hostility towards others is dysfunctional.
But I forgive you.

 

[Debater Slayer]

"turned out to be" means this was information that
existed in 2020, but not in 2016.

Exactly, hence my differentiation between the actions of the subset of Trump voters who chose him with anti-war intentions in 2016 (regardless of how big or small that subset was) and the actions of those who voted for him in 2020, when he had amply demonstrated a warlike mentality on top of all of his other egregious problems.

I suggest that your
support for Hillary & Biden (as the only alternatives
with any chance of winning) put you in no position
to condemn any who voted for Trump.

The part of my post that you responded to was phrased as a binary question, where I clearly said I wouldn't opt for the condemnation in the specific scenario I gave but instead acknowledge the anti-war intention while pointing out Trump's hawkishness:

Realistically, would I condemn someone who voted for Trump in 2016 if their main or sole reason for that vote was that they found Hillary more hawkish back then and wanted to avoid more war and unnecessary death, or would I instead acknowledge that the intention to prevent more war was good but point out that Trump turned out to be a hawk too?

I would prefer the latter, but of course, I also realize that many voted for Trump because his prejudices matched theirs, and then many also voted for him in 2020 after he had shown himself to be just as hawkish as many of his predecessors. This is where individual consideration of a voter's intentions and of the information (or misinformation, in many cases) they were working with comes in.

I'm not sure where you read condemnation of anyone in the above.

Your lesser of 2 evil calculation might differ from
others', but you still supported evil....understandably.
Read that not as criticism, but instead as a call for
more tolerance towards different voting preferences.

I don't see why you felt it necessary to recommend more tolerance toward different voting choices when what I said was precisely that one should take into account any given voter's intentions and the information they based their vote on instead of applying blanket generalizations to everyone who voted for either candidate.

One should continually consider new information,
Loyalty should be to one's values, not to candidates.

I agree.

 

[Stevicus]

That site seems to make some creative choices to minimize the nazi holocaust.

For some reason they have decided to bundle in Holocaust deaths with world war 2 deaths generally, while they have decided to report the Soviet Holodomor deaths in their own category.

If one scrolls down to read what he has to say about the Native-American genocide the author works to deny blame and deflect for settlers that weaponized disease:

Yes, that site does have a strange and macabre approach to history, and it is somewhat flawed, as you point out. But then again, the whole idea of trying to point which countries are more moral than others is kind of strange, in and of itself.

What should also be noted here is that, if Americans didn't believe they were morally superior, it would probably wreck the entire U.S. Defense budget. The military-industrial complex would go out of business.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly, hence my differentiation between the actions of the subset of Trump voters who chose him with anti-war intentions in 2016 (regardless of how big or small that subset was) and the actions of those who voted for him in 2020, when he had amply demonstrated a warlike mentality on top of all of his other egregious problems.



The part of my post that you responded to was phrased as a binary question, where I clearly said I wouldn't opt for the condemnation in the specific scenario I gave but instead acknowledge the anti-war intention while pointing out Trump's hawkishness:



I'm not sure where you read condemnation of anyone in the above.



I don't see why you felt it necessary to recommend more tolerance toward different voting choices when what I said was precisely that one should take into account any given voter's intentions and the information they based their vote on instead of applying blanket generalizations to everyone who voted for either candidate.



I agree.

I re-read your post.
It still appears that you condemn 2016 voters
who saw Hillary as more hawkish. Either I'm
bad at reading, or your post doesn't reflect
your intent. But apparently there's no argument
now.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I re-read your post.
It still appears that you condemn 2016 voters
who saw Hillary as more hawkish. Either I'm
bad at reading, or your post doesn't reflect
your intent. But apparently there's no argument
now.

The point of that post is fundamentally different from condemnation: I meant to suggest that in hindsight, it appears to me that there were understandable reasons to view Hillary Clinton as more hawkish and therefore hesitate to vote for her given the record of each candidate until 2016.

That Trump turned out to be similarly warlike is a different and later issue, which was a factor in 2020 but not yet in 2016, since Trump hadn't had a political record before then.

 

[Balthazzar]

Moral superiority would suggest being more right than everyone else, which isn't the case. Truth be told, we're young, and more like rambunctious teens than other nations with longer standing government structures. The good thing is we've never played the role of world hall monitor, but we have been involved in quite a few conflicts, some of which were necessitated by perceived threats to our national security. As an ally we've actually stepped up to the plate enough to garner a world police title, albeit unwarranted. We weren't set up as a beacon, but rather our struggle was about our own freedom and independence and being counted among other nations as our sovereign entity and people.

 

[Nakosis]

Are Americans morally superior to those of other nations?

Americans are culturally different. Whether you see that as superior or not is largely determined buy your own culture.

My own morals aren't the same as every American for one thing. I never saw them as superior just different. They are the morals I am comfortable with and they seem fine to me. It's odd to judge them as superior or inferior since they only need to work for me. Other folks have to worry about the morals that are best for them. Not my morals.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Americans? As in the people? No more or less than any other peoples. America the nation? We're currently funding a genocide for our pet colonial project of the last 75+ years. Hell no we're not more moral.

 

[The Hammer]

The military-industrial complex would go out of business

That may not be a bad thing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are Americans morally superior to those of other nations?

If we assume it's possible to rank the people of nations in order of their morality, I don't think America would come absolute last.

So I'd say technically...yes!

If you said "Are Americans morally superior to those of ALL other nations" I'd answer differently.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If we assume it's possible to rank the people of nations in order of their morality, I don't think America would come absolute last.

So I'd say technically...yes!

If you said "Are Americans morally superior to those of ALL other nations" I'd answer differently.

How would one rank nations in order of their morality given that 1) individuals may vary significantly from the actions of their government or other actors who might be aasumed to represent them and their morality, and 2) factors like upbringing and prevalent cultural ethos make it so that most people in any given nation generally mirror the prevalent culture and its ideals, whether a given individual is predisposed toward being benevolent or malicious?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How would one rank nations in order of their morality given that 1) individuals may vary significantly from the actions of their government or other actors who might be aasumed to represent them and their morality, and 2) factors like upbringing and prevalent cultural ethos make it so that most people in any given nation generally mirror the prevalent culture and its ideals, whether a given individual is predisposed toward being benevolent or malicious?

Oh, I don't think it's possible. Certainly not in any useful way.
I was just having fun with a question it's hard to take seriously.