We often have ethical arguments about when it’s morally permissible for us to do seemingly terrible things to them.  Examples:

1. When is it morally permissible for us to deliberately drop a nuclear bomb on their civilians?

2. When is it morally permissible for us to launch an attack that we expect will lead to ten civilian deaths for every target killed?

3. When is it morally permissible for us to torture one of them?

The general conclusion of these discussions – unsurprisingly given group-serving bias – is that it’s morally permissible for us to do almost anything to them.  Sure, there are a few random exceptions – it’s OK to nuke their civilian population, but wrong to waterboard suspects.  (Huh?)  But by and large, we give ourselves a big green light.

At the same time, we almost never have ethical arguments about when it’s morally permissible for them to do terrible things to us.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard a debate about:

1. When is it morally permissible for them to deliberately drop a nuclear bomb on our civilians?

2. When is it morally permissible for them to launch an attack that they expect will lead to ten civilian deaths for every target killed?

3. When is it morally permissible for them to torture one of us?

The most obvious rationales for these non-debates are:

a. We’re so morally upright that these hypotheticals aren’t worth arguing about; they’re as relevant as trolley problems.

b. Regardless of our behavior, doing terrible things things to us is wrong.

If you answer (a), the argument quickly bogs down in a thousand historical arguments.  But if you answer (b), our double standard is terribly obvious.