>Morality which
>cannot influence action is "cheap." Example: Nathan pompously announcing
>that he would under certain circumstances approve of bombing Israel.
As noted, that response was solicited because I compared the injustice suffered by Kosovars and Palestinians. And a moral analysis comparing those situations is not "cheap" but a way to provoke people who opposed Milosevic to justify why they can defend Sharon.
But then, most talk is "cheap", including most left posturing demanding pure rhetoric., rather than results. By Carroll's criterion, Lyndon Johnson was the ultimate moralist, since he hated almost all public pronouncements and preferred delivering results. On civil rights, he disdained the "red hots" who wanted all sorts of moral laws they could not pass over Southern filibusters and the reformist results he obtained were the real thing.
But I'll accept Carroll's comments as one reason why Clinton was far more moral than McGovern or Nader or other losing politicians, since he was able to "influence action." But I doubt the morality of compromise was what Carroll had in mind :)
-- Nathan Newman