Do you think that a country has the right to change other country's laws if they were immoral?

Question

A lot of third world countries has a bunch of immoral laws as like maltreating women in some muslim countries or chopping off hands when someone commits a robbery ......... so do you think that a more civilized country has the right to step in and change those rules by force to what it will consider moral ....yes or no and why ....and what do you suggest to do about these rules and how to change it ? you may give examples if you'd like.

Thank you for taking time and answering my question

Answer 1

In some circumstances yes, however, the intervening country should be of a very high moral standard itself. Take the USA for instance, until it stops subjugating it's own native population, the USA ought not to interfere in other countries.

Answer 2

I am a very strong adherent to the concept of sovereignty within a countries boundaries. However, there are historical examples of the necessity of stepping to the plate and taking a stand. I point directly to Adolph Hitler. This country did not enter WWII because of what Hitler and the Third Reich were doing although they knew of the atrocities taking place. What Roosevelt did do was to send supplies to England in an effort to help fight against the Reich. It was difficult to justify entry to the war when the US had not suffered damages either militarily or politically. When Germanys ally attacked Pearl Harbor Roosevelt was able to justify fighting the Germans AND their ally Japan. Generally speaking I do not believe that one government should interfer in the daily business of running a country not their own unless the business of that other country demonstrates a REAL and IMMEDIATE threat to the wellbeing of the first country. This doesnot include the rape of the other country for oil or other resources. It does include protection against a real threat, not a fact finding mission that endangers our own young people based on misinformation.

Answer 3

Determining what laws are immoral or not is a very grey area.

I agree with you that middle-eastern countries have a number of repressive and atrocious laws that seem like blatant human rights violations. But most countries that consider themselves "developed" have their own set of outmoded and terrible laws.

Doesn't the death penalty still exist in the USA? The US government has currently repealed Habeas Corpus (that means if the Government thinks you are a possible "enemy" of the state you can be detained without your right to a lawyer). What about the US Government's callous disregard of personal privacy and the continuing support of the wire-tapping policy?

So it's hard to judge another country's laws as good or bad unless you rectify your own country's laws first.

I say leave it up to the citizens of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other places to stand up to their governments to change their laws. And the citizens of the so called "developed" world should stand up to their governments to ensure their laws are better and more transparent and good for the people.

Answer 4

To answer "yes" one would have to be a supreme judge of morality. If you respect all cultures, then "a country", or any group of countries doesn't have the right to "change laws" of other countries. For you it may be immoral to chop someones hand off for theft, or hang someone for rape, but can you imagine how gay marriages look in the eyes of some people? Or so called "affirmative action"?
Globalism means disrespect for cultures, and effectively, the destruction of ALL cultures.

Answer 5

Yes, some country chops whichever parts of the man's body that that sins against women. Is it really in practice. This is called hudud law if one commits rape or sin, guess its just a gimmick. See The indian and chinese case where Canny DNA results proof positive result, They changed the whole story of Banana Hudud Punishment on the man and syariah/hudud switch it into the woman's fault on Jihad/Mati Syahid is justifiable in the eyes of You know who...because she is a non-believer and victim dies and goes to heaven according to some cult law makers...I do not believe personally
I do not believe in these laws anymore. Any better more self written law to protect women??? Every new leader changes the constitution as and when they want, so looks like it became a man made law already

Answer 6

MMMM.... its a tough one. I think that 3 or more Major countries should step in. Maybe not just "A" country because you would need re-enforcement. I think that some things could be left alone, for example: muslim women not having the right to vote and have to wear head covers. That is a part of their religion to wear those covers..... its not a choice, its a religious moral for them. But for hands, penises etc to be cut off is bad and YES civilised countries should step in.

Answer 7

As much as certain types of immorality digust me and everyone else in this country, it is a part of everyday life in this country and every other. In a country with a state religion, as opposed to ours, laws are made on the moral guidance of that state religion. Which leads me to believe that a government which in theory respects no religion over another ought not interfere with a government which is based on religious values. I think the biggest bone to chew would be taking care of our own illegal laws made in perversion of our own constitutional document. We shouldn't be putting our noses in everybody elses buisness until our own is in line. I for one love our country and what it was intended to be and i think that a lot of our laws have come to dictate morality and i think it should not. That is very close to having a state religion, and it's contrary to the bill of rights. Unless we have a government again that punishes only evil toward your fellow man and rewards the individual with freedom near unlimited, I think that the ball is in our own park and our country should be neutral, meaning no war with other countries unless, of course, we are attacked first. You can't make anyone like you in real life, and not everyone is ever going to love each other, but how can we demand of our government to quit oppressing us when our sons and daughters have been sent overseas to enforce the United Nations social policies numerous times?

Answer 8

Well first, I'd want to show them the various methods that we put people to death when twelve people vote to do that. Let them see the methods we are replacing with lethal injection, like hanging, shooting and frying in the electric chair. They could monitor any executions that are coming up, so they can see first-hand how "civilized" countries handle major felonies. Seriously, what is 'moral' to someone is 'immoral' to others. We have already interfered enough in Iraq's "improvement".

Answer 9

I do feel kind of sorry for people in the middle east, they do not know any better and have lived in the way they do for thousands of years, killing each other, chopping of hands for robbing and beheading people for crimes. Just because we do not live this way why should we Tell them what to do? as long as when/if they visit our countries they abide by our rules then everything should be fine,BUT, they expect to come to our countries and still live the way they do back home, wearing items of clothing that cover up faces are not a part of our society now and we should put a stop to it, if you don't like it then don't come to our country, simple. If we go to Egypt for example you are told to cover your shoulders, fair enough it is not our country and i abide by the rules they set out same as showing the bottoms of your feet. why should western countries have to bend over backwards to please other nationalities in our own countries??
When in Rome....

Answer 10

A law like this would be hard if not impossible to implement. What are the guidelines for immoral and civilized? To the middle eastern countries it might seem immoral for the US to try and change their countries laws.