so it is indeed a location thing for you? There's something special about originating on the third planet in the Solar system as opposed to being a sentient, self-aware species in some other system somewhere when it comes to ethics?
Now look at that concept objectively, and try to construct a logical basis for it to make sense.
A bunch of stupid primates who were about to kill a silicon-based lifeform, to enslave an android and to deny hologram their basic rights can hardly know the holy grail of universal ethics that applies to all lifeforms. Starfleet officers are humble folks and not megalomaniacs that wage war against death-loving aristocrats like the Klingons in order to put them into reeducation camps afterwards.
If every species thinks it knows what it best for ALL other species the consequence is total war.
Stop being passive-aggressive and snide.
Horatio, people might take you more seriously if you could write at least one post without being so smug and condescending.
I responded to your "you do not make sense" in kind and now the pot calls the kettle back.
that's an argument from consequences. You're saying "the consequences of believing in one ethical standard would be messy." First, that's a flawed reason for rejecting something, because it's based not on the merits of the argument, but unpleasant implications that you foresee.
Secondly, I have no idea why you'd think it would lead to continual war. Just because Humans may disagree with the Klingons' values doesn't mean they'd be willing to fight a war for it. War has an element of cost/benefit analysis. And you overlook the possibility of peaceful persuasion. The Federation might be able to get many cultures to go along with it without firing a shot.