I think part of it might be how far out into the brotherhood of man one chooses define “we” and “our” and at what point we are willing to say to folks being wronged that they are on their own. Would an abolitionist from France have been justified in 1850 traveling to the US to work in freeing slaves and helping them escape, or was the greater moral principle that they should not meddle in others’ affairs?
Also, I recognize that it sounds like I’m making a case that we should barge in and apply our moral code to folks minding their own business, but I absolutely recognize that doing so has an enormous cost and is often a pretense for colonialism or some other evil. I’m really just wrestling with a problem with no good answer.
I’m not at all sure that’s a fair reading of what I actually said.
You asked what made this situation different than the Saudis or Chinese, and one of the real differences is that as a practical matter, one could address human rights issues without causing a large-scale war or economic crisis. That’s a meaningful difference. Of course, that difference isn’t enough by itself to answer the question of what would be the right thing to do, but it’s a meaningful difference.
I’m not saying there are any easy answers for a question like this, that’s exactly my point.
