New Study Shows US, UK Use Metric System for Morality When Judging Israel and Russia

In a satirical twist that has the international community both chuckling and nodding in recognition, a recent study purportedly conducted by the fictional Institute of Geopolitical Irony (IGI) has revealed that the United States and the United Kingdom have been using the metric system for measuring morality when it comes to their judgments of Israel and Russia. The study, entitled “Moral Metrics: A Comparative Analysis of Hypocrisy,” suggests that the two nations apply a set of standards steeped in double standards and inconsistency, cleverly dubbed the “Moral Metric System.”

“Upon analyzing decades of foreign policy decisions, public statements, and UN voting patterns, it became evident that the US and UK have been converting their moral judgments into a metric system that somehow always works out in their favor,” explained Dr. Satira Ironique, the lead researcher on the study. “For instance, when measuring the gravity of international transgressions, they use ‘kilohypocrisies’ for allies and ‘megaoutrages’ for adversaries, ensuring a consistent bias in global moral mathematics.”

The report goes on to detail how this “Moral Metric System” includes units of measurement such as “doublestandards” (the basic unit of hypocrisy), “politikilograms” (the weight given to political interests over human rights), and “selective outrage meters” (the distance between stated values and actual actions). It humorously suggests that the US and UK have been leading innovators in the field of ethical relativism, crafting a sophisticated, if entirely self-serving, calculus of condemnation and approval.

One of the study’s more biting observations points out that, according to their findings, “the severity of a breach in international law is inversely proportional to the strategic value of the country committing it.” This principle is allegedly demonstrated by the nuanced “condemnation calculus,” which factors in economic ties, military alliances, and the potential for memorable photo-ops.

The reaction to the study has been a mix of laughter, applause, and thoughtful stroking of chins. Critics of US and UK foreign policy have hailed it as a brilliant exposé of the often arbitrary and self-interested nature of international relations. Meanwhile, supporters of the two countries’ approaches to global affairs have criticized the study as oversimplification, though they struggled to do so without a hint of irony.

In response to the findings, a spokesperson for the fictional Department of Geopolitical Measurements at the State Department reportedly said, “We are currently reviewing the metric system conversion chart provided by the IGI. It’s complex, involving a lot of moral algebra and ethical calculus that our current policy frameworks may not be equipped to handle.”

As the study circulates online and in diplomatic circles, it has sparked a broader conversation about the need for a more consistent and equitable approach to international relations. “Perhaps it’s time we consider adopting a universal moral metric system,” Dr. Ironique suggested. “But this time, let’s make sure it’s calibrated to justice, equity, and the universal respect for human rights, rather than the fluctuating interests of powerful nations.”

In a world often divided by realpolitik and national interests, the “Moral Metric System” study serves as a timely reminder of the importance of striving for a more honest and principled approach to global governance and diplomacy.