![]() One can abstract from their work three different understandings of the concept: formal, reputational and rhetorical.įormal moral authority is derived from an institutional status or position. The nature of moral authority has occupied the attention of philosophers and social scientists for decades, even centuries. ![]() To understand why these critics are mistaken, it is useful to take a moment to consider exactly what moral authority consists of, and why one needs it in order to offer moral judgments about the actions of others. has acted in the Western Hemisphere many times over the past 200 years.” A libertarian observer goes further: Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion “is not much different than how the U.S. “And even as we condemn Moscow for its outrageous aggression, we reserve the right to fire deadly missiles into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and who knows where else," Robinson writes. leaders are poorly placed to judge another nation for doing what this nation has also done. Let’s begin by trying to understand what the critics are talking about. ![]() At the same time, its importance in international affairs is probably very small. These critics, along with others from all points on the political spectrum, share a common analytical error: They assume that moral authority comes in but a single variety. Adds Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post: “The United States, frankly, has limited standing to insist on absolute respect for the territorial integrity of sovereign states.” Lacks Moral Authority to Criticize Russia for Intervening in Ukraine,” reads the headline on a recent blog post at the Scientific American. In one of those peculiar ironies of our self-involvement in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Crimea, it is the moral authority of the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |