I don’t know what position you think I’ve taken, but it doesn’t sound like my views. I’ll try explain better.
I did not mention “moral authority” at all, except to suggest that maybe it doesn’t exist. But I’ll be clearer about that: Moral authority is a bullshit concept. It’s either an ad hominem fallacy (if a “bad” state calls attention to an evil and you want to discredit them) or an appeal to authority (when a “good” state calls attention to an evil, and you support them) - either way it’s fallacious. Either something is bad or not. When Vladimir Putin talks about US cops disproportionately killing Black men, I know that he’s only saying it to make the USA look bad, and that Russia has its own race and police violence problems; however, it doesn’t stop the fact that what is being said is true and that it is morally just to call attention to it, even though the messenger is not in any way moral.
If Mother Teresa* had told me that Hindus were bad people, she might have done so with “moral authority” (again, though, that asterisk), but it would still be prejudicial bullshit. (* Mother Teresa, long revered as the quintessentially “good” person, was found to have many failings, and a few skeletons and some regrettably fascist friendships). [ I’m not aware if she ever said any such thing, by the way - I made it up as an just an example ]
In the end, moral authority is a perception, and highly subjective. The Moral Authority of the President of the USA created the 2003 Iraq war, and we’re still living with the fallout of that shitshow twenty years later.
Yes it is. It’s the classic “whatabout” argument, and it stinks of apologism. We can rightly criticise Russia or China’s human rights record, but whatabout Guantanamo? Eh? Eh? Well,
what about it? It’s also bad. The existence of evil in one place does not preclude the existence of evil elsewhere. I can oppose many bad things at one time; I have no loyalties. I will concede though that the Guantanamo example is more hypocritical - neither China nor Russia have claimed to be the great saviours of human rights, but hypocrisy is a tiny crime, and people harping on about the US being hypocritical should direct their ire at the actual crime: the torture of civilians.
But I don’t know why people are even surprised about it.. the 1960s and 1970s showed that the USA has always played fast and loose with the idea of human rights. I never thought the USA was a utopian society, and was convinced of that once I’d been there for more than a week. In a long career in an industry dominated by US companies, some of whom I worked for, I have assiduously avoided having to live there, despite the very large financial incentives of moving, for the same reasons I’d never work in any of the Persian Gulf kingdoms.
Right here, we are in agreement. I just find it odd that you don’t see the the contradiction of the thread title, which as an example of the exact thing you’re arguing against. But I’ll say it again: the crime of hypocrisy pales into insignificance compared with the actual crime of abducting and torturing non-combatant civilians. Shouting about the US’s hypocrisy, as this thread title does, is turning peoples outrage toward the wrong target.
@davidsrsb - do you really mean Middle East by “ME”? If so, I can’t agree. Those small Gulf states are nasty places to live in - one wrong step, offend the wrong relative of some prince, and you’re in jail for not being able to pay a ridiculously large fine for some tiny misdemeanour.