So what's "moral high ground"?

[Il-Principe]

A lot of people (mostly North-Americans) talk about moral high ground. Usually it reads like: "In war xy we seized/held(or lost) the moral high ground." But what exactly is this concept, on what (political) philosophy is it based and why is it so important? The very small wiki article describes it as tricky tactic used in debate.

As I don't quite understand, what's behind moral high ground, I'd gladly appreciate any input, you can give me. I'd also like to know, why it seems so popular in America. Is it based on some pseudo-Christian understanding? In Germany the concept seems to be more or less less unknown. I haven't had a single conversation in my whole life, where somebody mentioned moral high ground or something similar in a political or social context.

[Nazgûl Killer]

Basically, taking the moral high ground means you achieve a point in which you can justify your own actions over the actions of your rival/opponent/fellow debater. This is generally followed by patronizing over him and so on (When mis-used, of course), taking the moral high ground in a war means the reason you go to war is just and that you "Fight for the forces of good" against the "Force of evil".
The perfect example for this is the Second World War. The "Forces of evil" - Also known as the Axis states, started a war with the allied nations, or the "Forces of good", Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and Germany attempting to conquer all of Europe, North Africa and eventually the world. The main reason the Allied nations went to war was to stop this "Evil" from occurring and I honestly remember some leader claiming the Axis nations are the forces of evil, I just cannot remember which one or when.
Generally, the Allied nations fought for their own survival and to save the handicap, those with genetic defects, mentally ill/retarded, Jews, Gypsies and many other peoples (I apologize if I had forgotten any) from being destroyed by Nazi Germany.

Fighting for survival and for the greater good along with saving many other peoples from death and destruction gave the Allied states the moral high ground and made them the "Force of good". Generally, in cartoons, if you see a superhero fight against a villain, notice that the superhero always has the moral high ground. Be it stopping a murderer, saving hostages and so on.

Now, in debates you can use this tactic to show that, morally, your argument is more valid/true than that of your opponent in debate. This can also be explained by a moral conscience.
In my eyes, the best way to explain the moral high ground is to make sure others abide by the law and fight for the law. For example:
Every man has the freedom of speech. If you see said freedom being infringed, you are obligated to report it to the proper authorities or bring it to light - You also have the moral high ground in a debate over that predicament, as the basic rights of the human being were taken away from him. From that you can also see that the moral high ground can come from keeping and abiding by the laws/rules of society and/or your government.

That's my explanation of the moral high ground. Hope it helps.

[Il-Principe]

Basically, taking the moral high ground means you achieve a point in which you can justify your own actions over the actions of your rival/opponent/fellow debater. This is generally followed by patronizing over him and so on (When mis-used, of course), taking the moral high ground in a war means the reason you go to war is just and that you "Fight for the forces of good" against the "Force of evil".
The perfect example for this is the Second World War. The "Forces of evil" - Also known as the Axis states, started a war with the allied nations, or the "Forces of good", Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and Germany attempting to conquer all of Europe, North Africa and eventually the world. The main reason the Allied nations went to war was to stop this "Evil" from occurring and I honestly remember some leader claiming the Axis nations are the forces of evil, I just cannot remember which one or when.
Generally, the Allied nations fought for their own survival and to save the handicap, those with genetic defects, mentally ill/retarded, Jews, Gypsies and many other peoples (I apologize if I had forgotten any) from being destroyed by Nazi Germany.

Fighting for survival and for the greater good along with saving many other peoples from death and destruction gave the Allied states the moral high ground and made them the "Force of good". Generally, in cartoons, if you see a superhero fight against a villain, notice that the superhero always has the moral high ground. Be it stopping a murderer, saving hostages and so on.

Now, in debates you can use this tactic to show that, morally, your argument is more valid/true than that of your opponent in debate. This can also be explained by a moral conscience.
In my eyes, the best way to explain the moral high ground is to make sure others abide by the law and fight for the law. For example:
Every man has the freedom of speech. If you see said freedom being infringed, you are obligated to report it to the proper authorities or bring it to light - You also have the moral high ground in a debate over that predicament, as the basic rights of the human being were taken away from him. From that you can also see that the moral high ground can come from keeping and abiding by the laws/rules of society and/or your government.

That's my explanation of the moral high ground. Hope it helps.

Thanks, that was insightful. My next question would be, why is the moral high that important? From my understanding the moral high ground describes an ideal situation and might be applied to cartoons, but if you apply it to the real world, you encounter all kind of problems as the world isn't just a distinction between good and evil. If a politician ( say George Bush for the sake of the argument) divides the world in good and evil, it sounds either very naive or outright stupid or even malicious to me. So thats the question, why is such a concept needed to explain to world, which isn't really convincing? It reminds me a bit on the Zoroastrian philosophy, where the forces of good and evil battle against each other till the end of times.

[Nazgûl Killer]

Thanks, that was insightful. My next question would be, why is the moral high that important? From my understanding the moral high ground describes an ideal situation and might be applied to cartoons, but if you apply it to the real world, you encounter all kind of problems as the world isn't just a distinction between good and evil. If a politician ( say George Bush for the sake of the argument) divides the world in good and evil, it sounds either very naive or outright stupid or even malicious to me. So thats the question, why is such a concept needed to explain to world, which isn't really convincing? It reminds me a bit on the Zoroastrian philosophy, where the forces of good and evil battle against each other till the end of times.

Well, the public, being sheepish as they are, likes following the "Side of Good".

I'll, once again, bring an example.
During the Cold War, the United States endlessly tried to appear as the 'good guys' through propaganda and protection of Democracies, as did the Soviet Union (Best example? The Soviet Union supported the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 because they wanted the "Jewish people's suffering to end" and reasons like that, trying to appear good), nations strive to appear as if they're the good guys in order to pull the public, and other nations, behind them and garner their support.

Appearing as the bad guy will never, ever help and will only bring you enemies.

Now, once must remember that the moral high-ground rarely exists in politics, it's all about interests, but it is also all about outer appearances. Let's put it this way: If you were to elect an official, and you have two candidates:
Candidate A says "I will give as much power as possible to the military and police to make our streets safe from crime and enforce it with the strength of the iron fist" - AKA - The bad guy.
Candidate B says "I will give the society as much health care as possible, care for those in need and try my best to uphold their rights to the fullest" - AKA - The good guy.

Who would you elect?
Most people would elect Candidate B, simply because he portrays himself as the good guy.
Another perfect example? Why was Obama voted president? Two reasons:
1) He made promises he could never make but sounded so good.
2) He portrayed himself as the good guy that cares for his people.