Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Immanuel Can]

Again, lions killing gazelles is certainly a pattern of behaviour. But what is its moral status, and how do we judge it?

On the off chance that you honestly do not know what I was talking about.

No, lions killing gazelles NOT the behavior I am talking about, but how the pride of lions shares the gazelle, maybe.

Wait.

Why is the killing not a moral issue, but the sharing is? What assumption is informing your view that there’s a difference?

We are not lions living in lion culture.

Materialism says that essentially, we are just that: we too are apparently just beasts doing what beasts do. And nobody calls a beast “immoral” or “moral” for doing what beasts do. Our “culture” may be different, but what makes our “culture” more or less moral than that of the lions? Where do we get the code that says, “Killing/not sharing is wrong for us, but amoral for lions?”

[popeye1945]

This logically cannot be the case. You can't know that "common biology" is a moral orientation point, or that "survival" is a moral value, or what "well-being" would be, without already having in the back of your mind some conception of morality. In other words, you've begged the whole question, assumed that the morality you are familiar with is real morality, and then run to the conclusion. Your questioners have no reason to believe you know that survival is a moral goal (lots of species go extinct, of course), or that you know what "well-being" involves, and how you extract it (ignoring Hume) from your knowledge of "common biology". You'd have to show why you think these things are moral values, and how you got that they are.

Do you have such an explanation? Or will you simply pretend you don't need one, and forge ahead? If you do the latter, we have no reason to believe you.


Then I apologize for believing Veggie on that. I would never want to call somebody something as brain-dead as "Marxist" if they weren't. I retract.

HI Immanuel,

I don't have an opinion on Marxist philosophy, as I have never even read about it. Personally, I find your difficulty with the idea of the foundation of morality being our common biology strange.

It's actually quite simple, and David Hume put it concisely: you can't get an "ought" from an "is." That is to say, there's no way of telling -- if one is merely observing how things are -- that they "should" be some other way, or that there's anything wrong or right about how those things are.

A simple example: a lion kills a gazelle. Is that moral, or immoral? How would we know? Lions need gazelles for food. Gazelles don't want to be killed. So what's "right" or "wrong" about the action?

In the same way, a rock falls off a cliff. Is that "right," morally, or "wrong," morally? It's not even clear that the term "moral" can be applied to such a situation. But doesn't the Materialist origin story tell us that we are just as accidental in our origins as that rock? So what makes what we do more or less "moral" than a rock falling off a cliff?

That's Hume's critique of morality, basically. And while I'm not a Humean, I can see that he has any secularist in a bind. What does "moral" even mean, in a world that is the mere product of cosmic accidents, and in which the forces that led to our being here are not even capable of caring what happens to us, or what we do?

Our civic laws and court system certainly use the survival and welfare of people as that which is violated and so punishable when violated.

But our civic laws, like everything else, are, according to secularism, just another "is" happening, and could just as easily have been their opposite. We may like to survive: but our liking counts for nothing in a Materialist universe.

No doubt, gazelles prefer not to be eaten; that doesn't even remotely imply they shouldn't be, or won't be.

Help me out here, what do you think should be the foundation of a common morality?

Well, step one: whatever it is, it must be objective, if it's to be real and obligatory. If there's no real thing as "morality," then there's no special status to the games we play with that word, and it can all be ignored. But morality is only as good as the authority behind it: when we say to somebody "You ought to do X," and they ask "why?" we need to have a better answer than, "Because that's what I just happen to prefer at the present moment."

Even in nature, there are moral behaviors among animal species,

That's not apparent.

There are certainly patterns of animal behaviour. But patterns of behaviour are just another "is," just another "way things happen to be." What gives us the means to assess them as "moral"?

Again, lions killing gazelles is certainly a pattern of behaviour. But what is its moral status, and how do we judge it?

The idea of a morality based on our common biology is to draw the world into community, with no nation left out.

That's just globalist ideology. But ask yourself this: why would that even be a good thing? Why should we wipe out the distinctiveness and independence of other nations, in order to create a homogeneous global thing? Why would it be good for decisions about what happens in Indiana or Yorkshire to be made by some globalist elite group that meets in Brussels or Hong Kong? How do we know that would even be something that would "work" for some purpose we can assess as moral?

In fact, we don't know any of that. What we do know, though, is the larger the conglomerate of people we create, the less sensitive and responsive it is to minorities, and the farther the center of decision-making is moved away from the influence of the people it affects most. So a globalist government would have no reason to be particularly concerned about you or me. On the scale they'd be dealing, we'd be even less important than random epidermal cells to a living person.

Humanity is moving away from Empire and colonialism

Not at all, actually. There's nothing more ambitious by way of "empire" than globalism. And there's nothing more "colonial" than using some areas of the world as resources for others -- which is exactly what globalism would do.

...the BRICS federation of nations...

It's almost funny when you realize that the "R" is Russia, and the "C" is China. Those are the two most totalitarian places on the planet, each with an outstandingly awful record of mistreatment of human beings. And do we look to them for salvation? When have they even given their own people basic human rights? What is the evidence of their competence to understand, let alone run, global economics? And what is their moral record?

Big BRICS is, no doubt; but both economically clumsy and hideous in terms of its moral orientation, by way of being dominated by those two nations, neither of which has a credible record of moral behaviour.

Expect disaster.

Disaster is the declining American Empire, presently engaged with other Western nations in the act of genocide. As it presently stands, more than half the world disagrees with you. The American Empire has no room to criticize any country on human rights. Most of the world knows America as a fascist state, a brutal war-mongering Empire. The nature of the West has been that of a parasite on the weaker nations of the world. The present turmoil is the West's fear of standing on its own feet, without the ability to economically and militarily terrorize and economically enslave the Eastern Hemisphere. When you speak of China and Russia, you voice the homegrown propaganda that is part of the mythology of American exceptionalism. I suspect you believe you live in a democracy. Am I right on that call? You believe your vote counts; am I right on that count? I am not a fan of globalization, and neither is most of the world. Would not America's quest for world dominance be exactly that if it were successful?

I am not interested in globalization, and the BRICS federation of nations is not interested in globalization. They are interested in moving from a unipolar world headed by the United States to a multipolar world of cooperating nations. China, I believe, has already surpassed the American Empire to become the largest economy in the world; they are much more advanced in many vital technologies than America or the West in general.

Back to a morality based on humanity's common biology. At present, the three world desert religions claim to inform the West as to how to live the good and virtuous life according to a very nasty god, and I believe all three are in the process of making war on their neighbours. No, these religions of the West are drenched in the blood of innocence. Morality, it is only logical, should be based upon its subject of concern, without the introduction of the supernatural. With travel and communications as they are today, the world is a much smaller place, and it is not silly to consider the idea of a world community, which economically seems to be happening as we speak, a world of cooperating nations such as the BRICS. I am open to any ideas you have on a foundation on which to build a common morality, or do you think we need to stick with what we have presently?

[Immanuel Can]

As it presently stands, more than half the world disagrees with you.

They can't. The brutal, inhumane record of Russia and China is too well-known, and too abundantly documented. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not American, so rhetoric about "the American Empire" just bores me. You're missing the mark, and widely, too.

...the BRICS federation of nations is not interested in globalization.

Yeah, they are. Just wait and see. All Communists are. They actually believe that the way Communism will finally work is if everybody is made to believe it. And they'll happily kill all those who don't.

BRICS is just a front for that. Do you think the Russians and the Chinese are going to care about what South Africa wants? South Africa also has its own attrocious record of human rights abuses, and definitely should not be lecturing anybody. So they've got no moral high-ground to stand on, and they have no conscience about their own history, it seems.

Ironically, the Americans clearly do. Of all those nations, they seem to be the one that has some conscience, some twinge of hesitation about their own history or their own international conduct. I don't see any similar squeamishness on the part of the BRICS group, I have to say. And as a non-American, I'm in the best position to see both sides of that.

Back to a morality based on humanity's common biology.

Well, we've dispensed with that. "Biology" is just an "is," and morality requires an "ought."

Morality, it is only logical, should be based upon its subject of concern,

Whoops. You've begged the question. You've written "should" without having proved that anybody has a duty ("should") do any particular thing. And you've claimed you can do it "without the introduction of the supernatural." So let's see you do that.

I am open to any ideas you have on a foundation on which to build a common morality...

Sure.

Here's one thing we can be sure of: any "common morality" would have to be based on objective morality. Otherwise, there's no reason at all why it should ever be "common," and no reason why it's "moral" to "build" any particular thing rather than another. If you don't believe that morality can ever be objective and obligatory upon all people, or can't show how it could be, then don't expect any "common" anything in regard to morality. Nobody has a universal duty to agree with you, then.

So it has to be genuinely "common," which means it has to transcend both the individual (with his individual preferences) and cultures (with their individual preferences), and stand as capable of morally judging all of those. It has to be bigger than all the contingent wishes and dispositions of the "common" parties, and unify them under singular commitments.

Even Marxists know that's true. They won't allow a Marxist regime to have any influence from "reactionaries," or "counter-revolutionaries," or even anybody they deem "insufficiently Marxist." They even kill their own cadres and "useful idiots," whenever they fail to be "useful" anymore. And the means by which they do this is obviously not morality; it's just power.

But we need something better. We need something bigger even than Marxism, that lets us say to the Marxists, "when you torture and murder your people, what you're doing is wrong."

Any idea where you'd get such a thing?

[MikeNovack]

Materialism says that essentially, we are just that: we too are apparently just beasts doing what beasts do. And nobody calls a beast “immoral” or “moral” for doing what beasts do. Our “culture” may be different, but what makes our “culture” more or less moral than that of the lions? Where do we get the code that says, “Killing/not sharing is wrong for us, but amoral for lions?”

Stop using YOUR belief system about man vs other animals in a way presuming I SHARE YOUR BELIEFS (I do not)

I did NOT say "sharing the kill amoral for lions" --- I was saying that as social animals possibly with culture "sharing" might be moral with them (KILLING prey certainly not since they are obligatory carnivores). But whenever I am talking about wolf morality, orca morality, bonobo morality I am NOT talking about human morality.

I understand IC, you believe God has created you entirely separate from (other) animals. But when responding you cannot assume that is a shared truth. You can't presume what materialists do or do not believe.

But in a way, fitting. You don't believe a materialist/secularist can have a system of morality any more than a wolf (no sense of right/wrong). I take it then that you don't live with a dog? << or if you do, are blind to its emotional staytes >>

[popeye1945]

As it presently stands, more than half the world disagrees with you.

They can't. The brutal, inhumane record of Russia and China is too well-known, and too abundantly documented. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not American, so rhetoric about "the American Empire" just bores me. You're missing the mark, and widely, too.

...the BRICS federation of nations is not interested in globalization.

Yeah, they are. Just wait and see. All Communists are. They actually believe that the way Communism will finally work is if everybody is made to believe it. And they'll happily kill all those who don't.

BRICS is just a front for that. Do you think the Russians and the Chinese are going to care about what South Africa wants? South Africa also has its own attrocious record of human rights abuses, and definitely should not be lecturing anybody. So they've got no moral high-ground to stand on, and they have no conscience about their own history, it seems.

Ironically, the Americans clearly do. Of all those nations, they seem to be the one that has some conscience, some twinge of hesitation about their own history or their own international conduct. I don't see any similar squeamishness on the part of the BRICS group, I have to say. And as a non-American, I'm in the best position to see both sides of that.

Back to a morality based on humanity's common biology.

Well, we've dispensed with that. "Biology" is just an "is," and morality requires an "ought."

Morality, it is only logical, should be based upon its subject of concern,

Whoops. You've begged the question. You've written "should" without having proved that anybody has a duty ("should") do any particular thing. And you've claimed you can do it "without the introduction of the supernatural." So let's see you do that.

I am open to any ideas you have on a foundation on which to build a common morality...

Sure.

Here's one thing we can be sure of: any "common morality" would have to be based on objective morality. Otherwise, there's no reason at all why it should ever be "common," and no reason why it's "moral" to "build" any particular thing rather than another. If you don't believe that morality can ever be objective and obligatory upon all people, or can't show how it could be, then don't expect any "common" anything in regard to morality. Nobody has a universal duty to agree with you, then.

So it has to be genuinely "common," which means it has to transcend both the individual (with his individual preferences) and cultures (with their individual preferences), and stand as capable of morally judging all of those. It has to be bigger than all the contingent wishes and dispositions of the "common" parties, and unify them under singular commitments.

Even Marxists know that's true. They won't allow a Marxist regime to have any influence from "reactionaries," or "counter-revolutionaries," or even anybody they deem "insufficiently Marxist." They even kill their own cadres and "useful idiots," whenever they fail to be "useful" anymore. And the means by which they do this is obviously not morality; it's just power.

But we need something better. We need something bigger even than Marxism that lets us say to the Marxists, "When you torture and murder your people, what you're doing is wrong."

Any idea where you'd get such a thing?

You are thoroughly spewing the party line; if you are not a Yank, you should be. It's over for the American Empire; just watch the stock market in the next little while. How do you explain the Israeli and American genocide in Gaza and America's endless wars? Right, the West is a hundred percent good guys, white hats and all! PS: You know squat about what is objective and what is subjective, objective morality--lol!

[Immanuel Can]

Materialism says that essentially, we are just that: we too are apparently just beasts doing what beasts do. And nobody calls a beast “immoral” or “moral” for doing what beasts do. Our “culture” may be different, but what makes our “culture” more or less moral than that of the lions? Where do we get the code that says, “Killing/not sharing is wrong for us, but amoral for lions?”

Stop using YOUR belief system about man vs other animals in a way presuming I SHARE YOUR BELIEFS (I do not)

I'm not. I'm using yours. If you're a secularist, then you need to be able to say why you think man is more morally responsible than the beasts are.

But whenever I am talking about wolf morality, orca morality, bonobo morality I am NOT talking about human morality.

Why not? They're beasts, and so are we. And I find no evidence at all that the lower beasts deliberate about morality, or have ethics. I see instinct. But that's not ethics. I see socialized behavior. But that's just herd instinct. They have no moral theories, no beliefs about morality...why should we, if secularism is true?

I understand IC, you believe God has created you entirely separate from (other) animals.

So do you, apparently: because you say that "wolf morality" (whatever the heck you mean by that) isn't "human morality." So that makes humans "special" in some way. But you can't seem to say in what way they are special, especially in regard to morality.

And I can. That's the difference, in regard to morality.

You can't presume what materialists do or do not believe.

I never presume. I don't have to. It's very easy to deduce from their premises.

If they really are Materialists, then they must logically then believe there's no such thing as morality. And if they don't believe that, then they aren't really Materialists, because they believe in immaterial realities like morals. So they can pick their poison, but they can't escape that paradox.

So simple. So inescapable for them. Fortunately for us all, Materialists are almost always illogical in this respect, and continue to insist there's such a thing as morality, even though they're powerless to explain how it fits into a completely-material universe.

[Immanuel Can]

You are thoroughly spewing the party line;

Which "party" is that? I don't have any American "parties." I just call it how it is.

How do you explain the Israeli and American genocide in Gaza

I'll happily explain it to you, right after you explain Oct. 7th.

PS: You know squat about what is objective and what is subjective, objective morality--lol!

Out of logic, are we? Okay.

Have a nice day, I guess.

[popeye1945]

You are thoroughly spewing the party line;

Which "party" is that? I don't have any American "parties." I just call it how it is.

How do you explain the Israeli and American genocide in Gaza

I'll happily explain it to you, right after you explain Oct. 7th.

PS: You know squat about what is objective and what is subjective, objective morality--lol!

Out of logic, are we? Okay.

Have a nice day, I guess.

**Since Israel’s recognition in 1948, numerous scholars, human rights organizations, and legal experts have documented a sustained pattern of displacement, demographic engineering, and violence against Palestinians—actions many interpret as ethnic cleansing and, in recent years, genocide.**

Here’s a detailed accounting across historical phases, grounded in legal, political, and humanitarian analysis:

---

### 1. The Nakba and Foundational Displacement (1947–1950s)
- **Nakba (“Catastrophe”)**: During and after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, *over 750,000 Palestinians* were expelled or fled from their homes. More than *400 villages* were depopulated or destroyed.
- **Legal mechanisms**: Israel enacted laws like the *Absentees’ Property Law (1950)* to expropriate Palestinian land and prevent return.
- **International silence**: Western powers largely accepted Israel’s narrative of state-building, sidelining Palestinian claims.

---

### 2. Demographic Engineering and Settlement Expansion (1967–1990s)
- **1967 Six-Day War**: Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, displacing *hundreds of thousands* more Palestinians.
- **Settlement policy**: Jewish-only settlements were built across occupied territories, fragmenting Palestinian communities and violating international law.
- **Military orders and zoning**: Palestinians faced home demolitions, land seizures, and movement restrictions—tools of spatial control and population pressure.

---

### 3. Gaza as a “Testing Ground” (1990s–2020s)
- **Blockade and wars**: Since 2007, Gaza has been under a crippling blockade. Repeated military operations (2008–09, 2012, 2014, 2021, 2023) have killed thousands and destroyed infrastructure.
- **“Voluntary transfer” rhetoric**: Israeli leaders have proposed relocating Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan, framing it as humanitarian emigration. Critics argue this is ethnic cleansing in disguise.
- **Humanitarian collapse**: Gaza’s conditions—lack of clean water, electricity, medical care—are described by some as *collective punishment* and *slow violence*.

---

### 4. Legal Accusations of Genocide (2023–Present)
- **ICJ proceedings**: In 2024–2025, South Africa and other nations brought genocide charges against Israel at the International Court of Justice, citing mass civilian deaths, starvation tactics, and intent to destroy.
- **Genocide criteria**: Allegations focus on Article II of the Genocide Convention—killing, causing serious harm, and inflicting life conditions intended to destroy a group.
- **Scholarly consensus**: Some legal scholars argue Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the threshold for genocide. Others debate whether the pattern is continuous or episodic.

---

### 5. Conceptual Frameworks and Controversies
- **Ethnic cleansing vs. settler colonialism**: Scholars like Ilan Pappé and Rashid Khalidi frame Israel’s policies as part of a settler colonial project aimed at replacing the indigenous population.
- **Contested narratives**: Israeli officials deny genocidal intent, citing self-defense. Critics argue that framing obscures structural violence and long-term demographic goals.

---

### Sources and Further Reading
- [The Genocide Report](https://www.thegenocidereport.org/dispa ... estinians/)
- [Common Dreams](https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/is ... -cleansing)
- [Wikipedia: Palestinian Genocide Accusation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestini ... accusation)
- [The New Arab](https://www.newarab.com/analysis/israel ... eanse-gaza)
- [International Viewpoint PDF](https://internationalviewpoint.org/IMG/ ... _a5541.pdf)


Our opinions largely depend upon the information sources we are exposed to. I assume your humanity is intact, so I post this in the hope of a larger perspective on your part. There simply are no circumstances under which genocide is justifiable, the attempted annihilation of an entire people.

[Immanuel Can]

You are thoroughly spewing the party line;

Which "party" is that? I don't have any American "parties." I just call it how it is.

How do you explain the Israeli and American genocide in Gaza

I'll happily explain it to you, right after you explain Oct. 7th.

PS: You know squat about what is objective and what is subjective, objective morality--lol!

Out of logic, are we? Okay.

Have a nice day, I guess.

**Since Israel’s recognition in 1948...

I'm sorry...is this supposed to be your explanation of October 7th? If it is, I'm not seeing it.

I say again: I'm not American. Why you hate them, I cannot say. But I'm not one, so I can't help you with your problem.

[popeye1945]

Which "party" is that? I don't have any American "parties." I just call it how it is.

I'll happily explain it to you, right after you explain Oct. 7th.

Out of logic, are we? Okay.

Have a nice day, I guess.

**Since Israel’s recognition in 1948...

I'm sorry...is this supposed to be your explanation of October 7th? If it is, I'm not seeing it.

I say again: I'm not American. Why you hate them, I cannot say. But I'm not one, so I can't help you with your problem.

I suggest you do not want to see it. I do not hate the American people; I hate the American Empire and its involvement in genocide and endless wars. Most Americans believe they live in a democracy and that their vote truly counts, and most are fully enveloped in American exceptionalism. Homegrown propaganda is the most effective.

[Immanuel Can]

**Since Israel’s recognition in 1948...

I'm sorry...is this supposed to be your explanation of October 7th? If it is, I'm not seeing it.

I say again: I'm not American. Why you hate them, I cannot say. But I'm not one, so I can't help you with your problem.

I suggest you do not want to see it.

See what? I'm not American. I don't have anything to do with the stuff you're crabbing about.

I hate the American Empire and its involvement in genocide and endless wars.

But you love the BRICS group, though the Russians murdered at least 22 million, and the Chinese, who killed over 42 million...that we know of. But somehow you're in a crying jag over Hamas?

I'm not buying it.

Your vaunted 'compassion' is strangely limited to those you can leverage to spout hate at the Americans. And too bad for you...I'm not even among them.

[popeye1945]

I'm sorry...is this supposed to be your explanation of October 7th? If it is, I'm not seeing it.

I say again: I'm not American. Why you hate them, I cannot say. But I'm not one, so I can't help you with your problem.

I suggest you do not want to see it.

See what? I'm not American. I don't have anything to do with the stuff you're crabbing about.

I hate the American Empire and its involvement in genocide and endless wars.

But you love the BRICS group, though the Russians murdered at least 22 million, and the Chinese, who killed over 42 million...that we know of. But somehow you're in a crying jag over Hamas?

I'm not buying it.

Your vaunted 'compassion' is strangely limited to those you can leverage to spout hate at the Americans. And too bad for you...I'm not even among them.

I take some pleasure in watching the American Empire decline. It has labeled China its enemy simply for outdoing it in almost every sphere. The irony is that in the Empire's decline, the only one that might stand a chance to save America from desolation row is China itself. China's ever-so-successful government model is half free enterprise, representing investors from around the world, but with a steadfast one-party policy, and what free enterprise will not do because it is not profitable enough, the government does for the well-being of the country. In America, the people can change parties, but they cannot change policies that is for the elite. In China, you cannot change parties, but you can change policies. The billionaire elites do not run the show. The BRICS federation of nations represents fifty-six percent of the world population and is still growing, with many nations waiting in line to join. People who buy into Empire and the colonial tradition are, in this case, like people you see after an Earthquake going down to the beach to watch the tidal wave come in.

[Immanuel Can]

I take some pleasure in watching the American Empire decline.

You're not getting it. I'm not American. How hard is that to understand? You're talking to the wrong person. I've got no pony in that race.

But you need a trip to your therapist, just to get that bile out of your system. It's rotting your brain, apparently.

[popeye1945]

I take some pleasure in watching the American Empire decline.

You're not getting it. I'm not American. How hard is that to understand? You're talking to the wrong person. I've got no pony in that race.
But you need a trip to your therapist, just to get that bile out of your system. It's rotting your brain, apparently.

I understand you're not American, neither am I, but it is what is happening in the world right now, and even if you consider yourself a world citizen, it should be of significant interest. The concept of Empire and Western colonialism is six centuries of repeated ugly history, and it's coming to a close. You need to look in the mirror. The Chinese are evil people, and the Russians are evil people. Do you remember the Russians saving the West's Lily white ass in the Second World War. America and Britain lost half a million men each in that war; the Russians lost twenty-seven million defeating that monster Nazi war machine. Sometimes it is not the people that are to blame; it is when a system takes on a life of its own and instead of serving the people, the people serve an evil system.

[Immanuel Can]

I take some pleasure in watching the American Empire decline.

You're not getting it. I'm not American. How hard is that to understand? You're talking to the wrong person. I've got no pony in that race.
But you need a trip to your therapist, just to get that bile out of your system. It's rotting your brain, apparently.

I understand you're not American, neither am I, but it is what is happening in the world right now, and even if you consider yourself a world citizen, it should be of significant interest.

I'm not a "world citizen." "Citizen" means "dweller of a city," not "dweller of a planet, so the term is actually absurd. People are always local: that's the function of being in a body -- one cannot be in many places at once, only one. So human beings are inevitably local, and their involvement in the larger world can only radiate diminishingly from a local hub.

So one has to "clean one's own room," rather than manage world affairs. And the impact of many of us "cleaning our own room" is what changes the world -- not some mad leap into international political advocacy, which does nobody good and achieves nothing.

But here's what the mad preooccupation with world affairs does to people: it frees them from their own present moral duties, and lets them imagine they're being "morally good" for nothing more than imaginatively supporting "causes," agreeing with the rhetoric theoretically, and actually doing nothing at all.

Morality is, if nothing else, a local matter. The globe goes its own way; and that way is actually dependent on the number of people who will take their own moral responsibility to heart, and "clean their own room."

Or, as you prefer to put it, "take a look in the mirror," rather than in the world press.