What Do We Mean By “Moral”?

1. Why Talk About “Moral” At All?

The word moral is familiar, yet not simple. For some it sounds personal or religious. For others it sounds philosophical or abstract. On TheSpiritOfDag.org and in the Moral Accountability Index (MAI), we use the word in a very specific way.

Here, moral does not describe private virtue or personal purity. It describes how states and institutions act when human life, truth, and justice are at stake. It asks what governments actually do in the face of mass atrocities, grave injustice, or their own historical responsibilities.

2. A Simple Dictionary Starting Point

Dictionaries commonly define moral as being concerned with principles of right and wrong behaviour. This gives us a useful starting point, but for our work it is not enough.

In the context of international life, the question is sharper: When those principles of right and wrong are written into charters, conventions, and agreements, how do states respond when they are tested?

3. Dag Hammarskjöld: Moral Responsibility As Integrity Under Pressure

Dag Hammarskjöld, the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, did not treat morality as a slogan. For him, moral responsibility meant integrity of purpose under pressure:

• To uphold the principles of the UN Charter when they are inconvenient
• To refuse to hide injustice behind diplomatic language
• To protect the vulnerable, even when powerful actors are unhappy
• To speak truthfully, and sometimes quietly, rather than safely remain silent

In this spirit, moral leadership is not about claiming to be virtuous. It is about not abandoning principles when the cost rises. That same question sits at the heart of the Moral Accountability Index.

4. Honouring Treaties: When Law And Morality Meet

States do not start from a blank page. They sign and ratify documents such as the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, and the Geneva Conventions. By doing so they publicly commit themselves to certain minimum standards: to protect civilians, to prevent and punish genocide, to respect humanitarian law, and to settle disputes by peaceful means.

From a narrow legal perspective, breaking such commitments is a violation of international law. From a moral perspective, it is more than that. It means a state has promised one thing to the world and its own citizens, then chosen another path when it became difficult. It erodes trust, damages legitimacy, and weakens the shared foundations on which cooperation depends.

In the logic of the Moral Accountability Index, ignoring freely undertaken obligations is not only a legal failure. It is a moral breach of responsibility. It says something about how seriously a nation treats its word, its neighbours, and the people whose lives depend on those norms.

5. Shared Values And Living With Our Neighbours

No society survives on power alone. We live side by side with neighbours, and side by side with neighbour nations. Shared understandings of what is acceptable, even if imperfect, make it possible to cooperate, trade, protect civilians, and resolve disputes without destroying each other.

These shared values are reflected in:

• The rules we create together, such as the UN Charter
• The lines we agree not to cross, such as torture or genocide
• The institutions we support, such as courts, fact finding, and mediation
• The willingness to face painful history rather than deny it

Moral accountability in this sense is not abstract. It is a practical way to answer a simple question: How do we live with each other without fear?

6. Five Moments Of Difficult Moral Choice For The United Nations

The United Nations has often stood at the intersection of power, principle, and urgency. In several moments the organisation and its member states faced difficult moral choices, for example:

1. Rwanda, 1994 Should a lightly equipped peacekeeping mission stay, withdraw, or be reinforced while genocide unfolded. The cost of inaction became tragically clear only after the massacres.
2. Srebrenica, 1995 A declared “safe area” fell, and thousands of men and boys were killed. The UN had to confront the gap between promises of protection and the reality on the ground.
3. Libya, 2011 The Security Council authorised force to protect civilians. Later, many states argued about whether the operation went beyond the mandate. The debate continues about how to protect people without triggering new harm.
4. Syria, from 2011 onward Repeated vetoes blocked stronger collective action while atrocities mounted. The question of moral responsibility for using or withholding the veto became central.
5. Accountability versus peace deals In many conflicts, from the Balkans to Africa, the UN and mediators have had to weigh peace agreements that involve amnesty or power sharing against the demand for justice and accountability.

These are not simple stories of right and wrong. They are examples of how difficult, contested, and costly moral choices can be in international life, even when principles are clear on paper.

7. Different Cultures, Different Moral Lenses

What counts as “moral” is not described in exactly the same way in every culture. Some traditions emphasise duty and obedience. Others stress individual rights or communal harmony. Some prioritise order and stability. Others prioritise voice and accountability.

When states negotiate in the UN, these different lenses shape:

• How they read words like “sovereignty”, “intervention”, and “responsibility”
• How they understand justice, apology, or forgiveness
• Whether they see naming atrocities as necessary truth or as political accusation

The Moral Accountability Index does not claim to erase these differences. Instead it acknowledges them and asks: in spite of different cultures, how do states behave when basic human dignity and agreed norms are on the line?

8. The Dragon Next Door

J. R. R. Tolkien once wrote:

“It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him.”

In our world, the “dragon” can be many things. A history that has never been faced, a pattern of denial, a powerful state that refuses accountability, a culture of impunity inside institutions. Leaving such realities out of our calculations does not make them disappear. It only makes our analysis less honest and our policies less safe.

Moral thinking in international affairs means looking at the uncomfortable facts directly and still choosing responsibility: responsibility to protect, to acknowledge, to repair, and to prevent.

Have You Ever Thought About What “Moral” Really Means?

Most of us carry an instinctive sense of right and wrong, shaped by family, culture, and experience. We assume that others see it the same way, until we discover that they do not. In diplomacy, peacebuilding, and everyday work with people from other backgrounds, this gap can be a source of misunderstanding, conflict, or silent frustration.

Taking time to ask, “What do I mean by moral, and what might others mean?” is not an academic exercise. It is a practical skill for living and working with neighbours, colleagues, and nations whose histories and assumptions are different from our own.

Have you ever reflected on your own definition of moral, and how it might differ from the people and nations you are dealing with?

Understanding these differences does not weaken your principles. It helps you apply them with clarity, empathy, and realism in a world where the “dragon next door” may see things very differently from you.