Main Page Contact Register Log In

The subtlety is that in the case of a League of Democracies type body, the rules they enforce would be the ones they consider moral. So they would have a basis for saying those who violate their dicta were immoral, but the dicta would be in place because the actions they forbid were considered immoral, rather than the actions being immoral because they violate the dicta.

How is it different from saying that the best way of governing a country is to have small subset of its population - the "enlightened ones" dictate the rules? Is it moral to have a small subset of countries decide what's moral for everyone?
Replies (2)