The difference is that the 'penalty' I pay for being a (Mostly) moral actor is lower than that paid by a nation state that does the same.
But there will always be a difference in penalties from one actor to another. If you only hold a principle when it doesn't cost you anything, you can't call it your principle. At the very least, I wish we could stop pretending that we as a country have some kind of moral high ground when that is so clearly not the case.
Agreed on all counts. I'm trying to say that assigning morality to the actions of geopolitical actors is stupid. Self-interest is the highest virtue possible at that level, to the point of mutually assured destruction. I don't see a way out and if someone does please share with the group. Maybe Would be a place to start, but I can't see how that would progress into something that changes behavior on a scale that matters to issues relating to foreign interference in democratic processes.we could stop pretending that we as a country have some kind of moral high ground when that is so clearly not the case.
The answer to your last statement is right there--we stop saying that it's "stupid" to apply virtue to large-scale decisions.
Ok, replace 'stupid' with 'completely ineffectual' and what changes? I'm sorry to sound snarky about this, but it seems to be unsolvable. We're American. We're embarrassed by the actions of our political system/politicians. TFG is Russian, he's embarrassed by the actions of his political system/politicians. Now what? Go 'Our politicians are slightly less corrupt than yours because they aren't literally murdering rivals in the streets?' Sure, we can say that a lot, but then what? What value is drawn by comparing them? What value is there in saying, in isolation 'Our politicians are completely lacking in virtue.'