Universal Ethics: Oppression or Protection?

We the people of the United States are some of the most idealistic people in the world. In a country that was founded solely on principle, it is no wonder that it reflects in the way Americans view, with so much interest, the issues of poverty, disease, and discrimination in order to find possible solutions. Nevertheless, such beliefs have led to a moral quandary when figuring out how to apply our ethical views to foreign policy. The dilemma arises from the acknowledgment that the rights and morals what we feel obliged to respect are not always viewed or applied the same way in other countries.

How should we go about helping others when, as if often the case, help is not wanted? When widows are legally burned at the stake because their husbands died, what action should be taken? When an AIDS victim refusing treatment that could save him due to superstitious traditions, what should we do? The first thing to do would be to locate where we are on the objective-subjective scale of morality. Do we really believe that gender equality, the right to life, and other such ethical concerns are universally right or wrong? If not, then we can stop right here, for there would be no point in supporting these beliefs in other countries. Subjective morality implies that others, even if they hold beliefs conflicting with one’s own, are still right in their own special way. However, if we are to implement policy regarding things morally right and wrong, even in our own country, then we would have to admit to the presence of truth in certain moral beliefs, or else we might as well go our own way and the point of ethical debate and discussion would be nullified. If we do accept the premise that the truths we hold dear are indeed objective truths, then it follows that other countries ought to respect the same beliefs too, regardless of their government, culture, etc. However, it is difficult to reconcile this statement with the belief that the sovereignty of a country is something to be respected. Obviously it goes without saying that one government cannot legislate and enforce the moral compliance of a different nation.

The answer resides in the private sector of a nation. The government, acting as a public entity, has no jurisdiction in the actions and freedoms of a different country, but activist groups in the private sector have (most of the time) free reign to do what they please. Governments represent the legal structure of society, and since two different legal structures cannot interfere with each other’s business without warrant, government involvement is out of the question (excepting, of course, the extreme scenarios when certain governments severely transgress beliefs that are generally held by the world community). Therefore, it would be up to the individuals of society to promote the beliefs and values that they hold dear and believe all else are entitled to – in our case, the right to life, the right to free speech, etc. – which would allow each individual to be held accountable for oneself. The reason I bring this up is because violations of human rights occur worldwide (e.g. North Korea, Venezuela). However, when a particular group advocates change, often they are viewed as an intolerant group of people attempting to impose their beliefs on others (particularly advocates of democracy or nuclear power prevention). Many times, the politically correct concept of multiculturalism seems to supersede the importance of universal human values. However, if we are to live in a world that globally recognizes the truths we hold to be evident, then we need to first realize that the sharing of certain beliefs like free speech is not an unfair act of imposing one’s morals on another, but rather a protection of the rights that all humans ought to have.