Are you morally superior?
Here come western senses of superiority, the idea of continents existing at all, of the need to "civilise". But in that kernel of "goodness" where the West wished to liberate other countries from morally reprehensible activities, there also came a sense of division, and the idea that possessing X Y Z moral beliefs made one a better, superior person. A superior nation. One which should spread, dominate, and erase all other ways of living.
Is to be a good person to be a better person? I think most would say yes. To be a good person, is it your compulsion to then better others? To bend them to your moral standard? To enforce your ways upon them to end their own evil ways? To take away their agency to do "wrong", however "wrong" is defined in your own subjective eyes, and force upon them your "good" ways?
It is so interesting. One might want to strip down morality to its most basic principles to avoid the evils committed by the west in their pursuit of enforcing moral superiority (among other interests). Ideas like "don't have slaves" for instance. But the moment you wish to enforce such a rule, you require consequence, which requires system, and institutions, which come with culture, installing powers to enforce such systems, and maintaining hegemony.
And that's not even considering the variability of morality. How modern powers themselves are divided on the justice of the "death penalty" which proposes that murder is okay if state-sanctioned and determined deserved by the systems in place. But it is not okay if taken in revenge by an individual who is not endorsed by the state. That individual was not vetted by the system, and the just cause for the murder had not yet been determined by the system's criteria and opinion, as determined by the system's culture.
Morality is enforced by system, which is tied into the cultures in which those systems were constructed. If you wish to enforce your morality upon another, you must bring with you the culture whereby your morality can be enforced.