Any one of the 5000 or so indigenous peoples that continue to live subsistence-based lifestyles. Basically, any industrialized society doesn’t get to call itself moral.
No country is moral when its interests are at stake.
Which one country defeated Nazism?
Oh, and overthrowing a sovereign nation with a baathist in charge is not ‘defeating baathism’ any more than overthrowing the United States would defeat Christianity.
I’m not sure what the OP is driving at. Maybe he could mention what country he thinks is the most immoral, and we can work our way up from there.
Seriously, though, the subject itself doesn’t seem to have an easily definable and consistent meaning. I personally am much more interested in what the OP thinks he’ll gain from this thread. Once he knows which country is most moral, does he plan to move there? Is he going to become an activist for his home country to become more like the ideal, whatever that is? Was this thread posted just to kill some time? I’m curious.
I laughed out loud when I read how you equate supporting terrorism, strict gun laws, and child abuse.
FWIW I don’t think Ireland’s gun laws are all that strict. Also, the state doesn’t support the IRA.
Iran, possibly.
The Irish government I don’t think has actively supported the IRA with money and so on. As for gun laws it isn’t extremely stringent in my opinion although certainly it needs libertarianizing but it’s better then the UK or Japan.
Well the government of Ireland has at any rate maintained it’s position on abortion and if the citizens are commiting abortion in Britain it isn’t the government’s fault really.
Does any nation really show total tolerance of the homeless?
I agree but the Travellers ought to assimilate and stop being nomadic.
There has been reform by both the Catholic Church and the victims themselves.
[quote=“jjimm, post:15, topic:509500”]
It isn’t part of the UK: it’s a British Crown Dependency.
QUOTE]
That’s what I meant :smack:
The point I was making is that having strict gun laws is a moral choice. Wqually, having liberal gun laws is a moral choice. One is not more moral than the other.
I would say that the world’s most moral nation is the nation that is doing the most to solve the world’s biggest problem, and I would say the world’s biggest problem is poverty, given that as many as a billion people are at risk of dying by starvation. To find out more, just type “billion starvation” into Google. Extremes of poverty could be eliminated in about two decades if the rich countries fulfilled their promise to spend 0.7% of gross national product on international development projects (more: The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs). The only countries who are actually doing that are the Scandinavian ones, so at the risk of expanding the definition of “country” I would say Scandinavia is the world’s most moral place. The countries that are doing the most to cause global poverty are the tax havens which providing secret bank accounts for the super rich so that they can avoid taxes, see “Tax Justice Network”. The worst country in this respect is without doubt Switzerland, which therefore receives my vote for the world’s least moral nation.
Russia.
No, ethics are. Morality is strictly a personal definition. Just like the OP thinks that being pro-life is a virtue, I think that being anti-abortion is a heinous violation of reproductive autonomy.
Hey. another zombie!
I would argue against Ireland simply because it surrendered so much of it of its civil society, particularly that of the social safety net, to the Catholic church, and for decades tuned a blind eye to the abuse of tens of thousands of children in orphanages and various forms of work houses. This hardly makes them unique, but IMO certainly takes them out of the “best of” class.
This is a phenomenally crass thing to say. Please try to have a little respect for entire ways of life before you suggest they change to become like the society that marginalizes them.
Nunavut.
Um, Canada? They don’t really piss anyone off that I can think of. They’re just kind of there.
Note, the OP said we’re talking about nowadays, NOT past behavior. Slavery shouldn’t count for this conversation. (And if you’re arguing that the Soviet Union was more moral, then you’ve truly gone around the bend)
Yeah, and those damned Jews! They should have just stopped being Jewish, so Hitler wouldn’t have killed them!
The person I was responding to was talking about past behavior, including stopping the Nazis. And if us stopping the Nazis made us moral, then logically it makes the Soviets moral since they did more than we did. It’s their argument, not mine.
I don’t know why everyone keeps saying that morality needs to be defined. This is an obviously opinionated question asked in IMHO. If someone asked what the most beautiful song ever written is, would you need a definition for beautiful?
I was kind of thinking that, but then I’ve also read that those are two of the richest nations in the world. When the average income is around $80,000/yr, it’s pretty easy to donate 0.7% of that.
I follow the definitions from my Philosophy class. “Moral” = “acceptable according to the customs (Latin mores) of the place and time”.
By that definition, all of them. They may not match my mores, but they match their own. It’s individuals who can go against or ignore mores; nations can’t.