Personal moral self-determination among individual people is a principle that is upheld strongly by most college students. This principle is held with a very high regard, almost to the level of sacred truth. The idea behind personal moral self‑determination is that each and every person has the right to determine the rule by which he will live his life.
It is this rule that allows us to live an existence of freedom while in college. There is no entity that can judge our actions since we alone are the guide of our lives. The closest person that could judge would be someone that was at our place, but even in this case, their judgment would be ill-received in our current social climate.

The establishment of societies appears to limit the role of self‑determination among individuals. People join together in a binding agreement, whether explicitly laid out in a founding document, as in America, or implicitly built upon the traditions and customs that have been passed down from generation to generation.

Once people have joined together into a society, they yield some of their personal self-determination in order that the full society, working together, can effectively pursue a combined self-determination that serves the greater good of the entire community. By joining together, people within that society affirm certain shared ideals and morals that hold families, neighborhoods and villages together.

This is in part why, in a less progressive era, minorities have often faced resentment from the majority population. By being a minority, especially one that rejects the shared ideals and morals of the community, certain segments of the population effectively thumb their nose at the traditions of the majority. A conscientious and thoughtful minority might take some effort to ensure that it does not overtly ridicule the morality of the majority. Alternatively, they might wish to form a new society around their own shared values.

This principle of self-determination applies among nations as much among nations as it does among individual people. Nations seek to maintain their combined right of self‑determination on the international level. Traditionally, nations have respected the self-determination of their fellow nations. What has been called the law of nations, which is today often referred to as international law, respected the national sovereignty of each country. This concept was even embraced by the United Nations when it was founded.
The idea is that by not having motivations for invading other nations, countries could avoid entangling alliances. The idea of entangling alliances was something that George Washington warned the American people to avoid. President Washington was proven correct when we examine, as one example, the events that lead up to vast international crisis of World War II, which is a situation where the lives of approximately fifty-five million people were lost.

There are certainly many times when the use of military force is justified under international law. Self-defense is precisely that situation. If violent provocations are being used against a nation, that nation certainly has the right to respond to protect its integrity.
Another more tenuous reason to go to war would be for moral or humanitarian reasons. Even in this situation, determining precisely what constitutes a valid reason is difficult. During the 2000 presidential debates, former president George W. Bush voiced his opposition to President Clinton’s “nation building” that was going on in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps such a case in our day would be the situation in the Sudan. Many people have urged some sort of military intervention to prevent what appears to be a massive genocide going on in the area. Yet we rarely hear many politicians advocated for the use of force in Darfur.
Where we have heard much advocacy for the use of force has been in the Middle East against Muslim-majority nations. All kinds of invective and accusations of human rights abuses are hurled at these nations. Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, are all attacked for being oppressive nations, and for abusing women and the like. We are constantly urged on to invade these nations in order to establish democracy.

However, unlike a defensive war, or a humanitarian war, the purpose of these aggressive wars is to undermine the ideals and morals of these societies. Muslim notions of piety and modesty are unacceptable to a certain segment of American society. What would be seen as discrimination against any other minority group is deemed perfectly acceptable when applied to Muslims. What happens is that Muslims feel compelled to respond to these attacks on their faith and morals, and we see an ever escalating resentment and hatred building up.

America can return to being a respected and idealized nation if it returns to its very values upon which it was founded. America can be a strong nation, without resorting to preemptive attacks upon foreign nations. For America to be safe and secure, it is not necessary to leave other nations in a moral wasteland. We will also do a much better job of securing the safety of the American people.
the American people to avoid. President Washington was proven correct when we examine, as one example, the events that lead up to vast international crisis of World War II, which is a situation where the lives of approximately fifty-five million people were lost.
There are certainly many times when the use of military force is justified under international law. Self-defense is precisely that situation. If violent provocations are being used against a nation, that nation certainly has the right to respond to protect its integrity.
Another more tenuous reason to go to war would be for moral or humanitarian reasons. Even in this situation, determining precisely what constitutes a valid reason is difficult. During the 2000 presidential debates, former president George W. Bush voiced his opposition to President Clinton’s “nation building” that was going on in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps such a case in our day would be the situation in the Sudan. Many people have urged some sort of military intervention to prevent what appears to be a massive genocide going on in the area. Yet we rarely hear many politicians advocated for the use of force in Darfur.

Where we have heard much advocacy for the use of force has been in the Middle East against Muslim-majority nations. All kinds of invective and accusations of human rights abuses are hurled at these nations. Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, are all attacked for being oppressive nations, and for abusing women and the like. We are constantly urged on to invade these nations in order to establish democracy.

However, unlike a defensive war, or a humanitarian war, the purpose of these aggressive wars is to undermine the ideals and morals of these societies. Muslim notions of piety and modesty are unacceptable to a certain segment of American society. What would be seen as discrimination against any other minority group is deemed perfectly acceptable when applied to Muslims. What happens is that Muslims feel compelled to respond to these attacks on their faith and morals, and we see an ever escalating resentment and hatred building up.

America can return to being a respected and idealized nation if it returns to its very values upon which it was founded. America can be a strong nation, without resorting to preemptive attacks upon foreign nations. For America to be safe and secure, it is not necessary to leave other nations in a moral wasteland. We will also do a much better job of securing the safety of the American people.

Eric can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it