Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Repentence Tyrathlion]

We are trying to impose "western" ideals on countries that are, not only, not western countries but also devout anti-western 'culture' countries. In every recent case stated, from Korea all the way through to Afghanistan, the culture barrier and lifestyle of the people there is wholly different from what western norms are.

You have to go back almost pre-Crusades to find it's start where pompous European society felt that it had the one true religion while possibly just a pompous mid-east society felt that it's was the truth. Both have tenants that are similar but differ in more ways than can be easily reconciled. In any case, the West has prospered and now thinks that it will be simple to just display how great democracy is, and since our system is "So much better"

The thing is though, is that some cultures are just better. Rule of law is better then autocracy and theocracy. Rights for women and minorities is better then treating them like shit. Freedom of speech is better then having state sanctioned limitations on speech. Bodily autonomy and the de-legitimization of slavery are better then the alternative. I'm not saying western culture is perfect, far from it, we are absolutely full of problems, corruption and environmental destruction being the biggest, but there is a lot we get right, and I think its very disingenuous to to go, 'well they're just different' because by that same argument you could have said that slave holders were 'just different' and that we have to let them keep slaves because 'its just part of their culture'. No. There is different, and there is actively harming others.

I'd be careful about mixing up 'culture', 'politics' and 'social freedom' there.  Slavery, racism, sexism etc. are things that we can all agree are bad.  But those are closer to the topic of 'social freedom' rather than the other two, and culture and politics are a different kettle of fish.

The problem is, I'm not sure we can objectively say that western democracy is 'good'.  No political philosopher in history has ever proposed the system that we currently have.  We go around preaching and spreading the stuff, and in just about every case of note you care to mention, it hasn't worked.  Egypt, one of the most westernised countries in the Arab bloc, has taken democracy and then failed to understand it.  Democracy is not a magical cure-all that will turn a country into a happy free place.  Doubly so if the inherent concepts are not present in the local culture.  If you read between the lines of democratic experiments in the region, it seems like everyone is going along with it and happy that they get to choose, but the moment the decision's been made and things are running, suddenly it reverts to how things used to be in mindset.

The 'Arab spring' was not, in my opinion, a grand outcry for democracy.  It was a sudden, grand reaction to corruption and abuse of social freedom, and the assumption everyone made, including those doing the rebelling, was that democracy was the answer.  I'm not convinced it was.

[Seriphyn]

Yeah, considering Western culture has practiced racism, slavery, misogyny and such things in its past and continues to do so in certain quarters, I can't see how it can be objectively argued to be superior.

[Lyn Farel]

Who other then the US government, and specifically the government, actually thinks this is a good idea?

France government, as weird as it sounds. Only the government though, since most of all the other political parties are opposed to it.

Not the public opinion though, I think, even if they are really quiet, or that medias do not speak a lot about that particular point.

[Anslol]

Before I address the human morality debate, this just in:

Senate and Congress spam Obama's email/snail mail box with the following:

"Don't you dare act without our vote, mu fugga."

I'm serious. Word is spreading and news has confirmed that the on-holiday senators/congressmen are demanding Obama not even consider acting until everyone else is back. Oddly enough, they're 100% right. I've had my gripes with both groups and their non-action in favor of bullshit politics, but they're right. If the President acts without a vote or discussion, he's gonna have a bad time.

[Victoria Stecker]

Before I address the human morality debate, this just in:

Senate and Congress spam Obama's email/snail mail box with the following:

"Don't you dare act without our vote, mu fugga."

I'm serious. Word is spreading and news has confirmed that the on-holiday senators/congressmen are demanding Obama not even consider acting until everyone else is back. Oddly enough, they're 100% right. I've had my gripes with both groups and their non-action in favor of bullshit politics, but they're right. If the President acts without a vote or discussion, he's gonna have a bad time.

Where were these assholes' spines back in 2003?

Not that I disagree with them. It just annoys me to see the way they'll treat Obama after demanding such fealty to Bush.

Of course, if congress is demanding any say in how we deal with Syria, then nothing is going to happen. While I don't like that option, it's probably better than the alternatives. And if it gives Obama an out from his "red line" stupidity, all the better.

[Vikarion]

Where were these assholes' spines back in 2003?

It is quite possible that that is what gave them spines.

[orange]

Where were these assholes' spines back in 2003?

It is quite possible that that is what gave them spines.

And some of them (fiscal conservatives, ie Tea Party) were not there.

[Logan Fyreite]

The west considers those things to be bad (slavery, sexism, etc), but that doesn't mean that other cultures don't feel differently about those items. I find the biggest issue to be that regardless of the freedom that we try to give the people in that region by stepping in and "saving them" they still are going to choose to 'vote' whatever way their culture tells them to. Change in those countries has to happen from inside, not outside in my opinion. Is it horrible that gas was used on civillians, YES, but it's not the first or the last time it's happened, we are just being told that it's something that we should care about by mass media.

I want to talk about actual social change in the US. The US didn't give women the right to vote because some other country said "gee you should do this, let me show you how." Women's Suffrage was responsible for the change. Hell, womens rights are FAR from complete in the US, as are the rights of minorities, disabled, or LBGT. I'm lucky that I am a white male in the US, at least most of my rights are still intact by virtue of my sex and skin color. Which isn't right either, but it is the truth. None of our major rights "breakthroughs" were either the firsts of their kinds (worldwide) NOR caused by some other country coming in and saving us from ourselves, it was by in large caused by sometimes peaceful and sometimes militant movements, of the people, demanding and then making things change. Is this the case with the "rebels" in Syria, perhaps, but then is it our responsibility to try to quell the rebels in order to establish a "more better" government by our standards? I don't think so.

Same thing applies to other countries. No amount of going into a country and saying in definitive terms. "Women/blacks/whatever are equal because we say so" actually MAKES it true. We are fortunate the have had, in the past, a responsible government who at the time of these movements was able to react properly from our current standards. How much different would the US be today if the Confederacy had either won the Civil War or at least independence? I'd say that things would be very different in the south at the very least. Is that right or okay, probably not, but just going in and decreeing equal rights hasn't worked so stunningly well in our OWN country, what makes it possible to go into another country and try the same crap?

Here is what I find the most scary. As a former Sailor in the US Navy, there were a whole subset of regulations where I could disobey what I will classify as "stupid" or Immoral orders given to me by officers. What's terrifying is that there are people out there who for whatever reason, and I am sure they feel they are doing the right thing in their own way, feel it is okay to attack and kill civilians when ordered to. I hope that I was never that brainwashed, I like to think I wasn't, but I was never in direct combat for months/years on end fighting insurgents. That's just terrifying to think about, being given an order to fire chemical/bio weapons on children, families. 

Back to the actual topic, I don't think the US has any reason to go into Syria worth a damn to put our son's, brothers, Daughters, Fathers, Mothers, uncles, Aunts, Grandchildren in harm's way for another war with no definable end or achievement that isn't a total straw-man.

[Louella Dougans]

the reason the USA is almost always the major element in any kind of "world policeman" role, is because of the capabilities of the USN, and the USAF, in terms of being able to move large amounts of people and equipment around the world, in short timescales.

A Carrier task group can be (almost) anywhere in the world within a few weeks. Or days if it is close by.

Other countries just do not have the logistic ability to do things in a timely manner. And as long as the US does, then other countries are unlikely to change that situation.

[Vikarion]

Yeah, considering Western culture has practiced racism, slavery, misogyny and such things in its past and continues to do so in certain quarters, I can't see how it can be objectively argued to be superior.

Even though humanity, in general, continues to get sick, it can be argued that human's perspective that being healthy is superior to being sick is entirely objective, rational, and non-hypocritical. Similarly, if we were all always healthy, and had the symptoms of being sick described to us, we would be justified in finding our own condition to be better.

Western culture, today, and as it is typically defined, is perhaps not in and of itself superior. However, the concept which is being discussed, which is the humanistic, liberal subset of western culture, is objectively better. It is objectively better insofar as such things as equality, democracy, and etc tend to, on average, reduce conditions and situations which we consider "bad".

It is my opinion, for example, that one can match this sort of western culture, that is to say, the sort most people tend to think of when they speak of "western culture" up against other cultures and decide which results in the fewest harms. I do think that there is something to be said, for example, in western culture not condoning the stoning/hanging of gays and lesbians, unlike, say, religiously fundamentalist cultures. There's no real societal need that brutally killing gays and lesbians, and, by the moral code I believe to be objectively obtainable, not killing them is morally better.

Of course, it's probably wise to consider the fact that western culture is not monolithic. Southern Alabama culture in America, for example, is not as good for people as, say, Denmarkian or Californian-San-Francisco culture. How can I say this? Well, if nothing else, the food is more likely to give you a heart attack. And that's just one physically obvious sign. And cultures change through time - racism was much more endemic in the west than it is now, and it continues to decline. Will it ever disappear? Who knows. But saying that it was racist does not change the fact that some places are nearly equal now.

TL:DR - you really can judge that some cultures are better than others, based on objective statistics (related to cultural practices) and human health and well-being.

[Saede Riordan]

Yeah, considering Western culture has practiced racism, slavery, misogyny and such things in its past and continues to do so in certain quarters, I can't see how it can be objectively argued to be superior.

Even though humanity, in general, continues to get sick, it can be argued that human's perspective that being healthy is superior to being sick is entirely objective, rational, and non-hypocritical. Similarly, if we were all always healthy, and had the symptoms of being sick described to us, we would be justified in finding our own condition to be better.

Western culture, today, and as it is typically defined, is perhaps not in and of itself superior. However, the concept which is being discussed, which is the humanistic, liberal subset of western culture, is objectively better. It is objectively better insofar as such things as equality, democracy, and etc tend to, on average, reduce conditions and situations which we consider "bad".

It is my opinion, for example, that one can match this sort of western culture, that is to say, the sort most people tend to think of when they speak of "western culture" up against other cultures and decide which results in the fewest harms. I do think that there is something to be said, for example, in western culture not condoning the stoning/hanging of gays and lesbians, unlike, say, religiously fundamentalist cultures. There's no real societal need that brutally killing gays and lesbians, and, by the moral code I believe to be objectively obtainable, not killing them is morally better.

Of course, it's probably wise to consider the fact that western culture is not monolithic. Southern Alabama culture in America, for example, is not as good for people as, say, Denmarkian or Californian-San-Francisco culture. How can I say this? Well, if nothing else, the food is more likely to give you a heart attack. And that's just one physically obvious sign. And cultures change through time - racism was much more endemic in the west than it is now, and it continues to decline. Will it ever disappear? Who knows. But saying that it was racist does not change the fact that some places are nearly equal now.

TL:DR - you really can judge that some cultures are better than others, based on objective statistics (related to cultural practices) and human health and well-being.

Yeah all of this.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

Charlie Stross has some interesting things to say on this subject.

The comments are worth a look as well.

[Vikarion]

That said, I don't think that a moral obligation needs to be framed - or should be framed - by necessity as "a precept which overrides all other behavior". One shouldn't put too much of restraint on that, else one will by necessity end up with disfunctional morals. A moral obligation can be weaker than that, and the obligation should be in proportion to the value it's connected to.

Also, even if we constrain moral obligation like that: The fact that human beings won't in most cases behave like the moral obligation does, doesn't devalue the moral obligation. It'd be a fallacy to say that what ought to be needs to be. As there are some poeople who give everything they don't necessarily need even such a constrained concept of the moral obligation to prevent others from starving is possible to fullfill. So, the argument that the moral percept isn't possibly fulfillable has no traction. That it isn't particularly useful is more a symptom of unreasonably constraining what a moral obligation is.

Two things.

First, by definition, a moral obligation is a demand to put aside other priorities to effect some action. It isn't a requirement to refrain from action, or to possibly take action, it is imperative, i.e., obligatory. If it isn't obligatory, than it isn't a moral obligation, is it?

It is certainly possible to uphold varieties of moral values or goals, but these things are, by necessity, somewhat looser than obligations. For example, I could hold the moral goal of seeing people not starve to death, but that does not obligate me to a particular action. It merely means that, of the several goals I have, I will not act in such a way as to make starvation more likely. It may mean that I act positively to end starvation. But because it is a goal, rather than an obligation, I am not forced to devote all ends towards ending starvation.

Second, the fact that some people can act in such a way as to fulfill an obligation does not mean that said obligation is a reasonable creation. It is true that a person can act to devote themselves entirely to the welfare of others. The difficulty with this arises when we examine the results of everyone living up to this moral obligation. If most people were to be devoted to the welfare of others, vast inefficiencies would form (you don't know what is good for me as much as I do), free riding would become the optimal survival strategy, and trade, capitalism, and technological progress would grind to a very rapid stop. If mankind continued to follow this "moral obligation", the only people left would be those who refused to go along with it. The obligation would self-annihilate. Actually, when we have tried to implement obligations like this, the societies tended to grind to a halt a long time before that.

Now, one can make the argument that morality has nothing to do with practicality. Perhaps so. But if it is so, then so much the worse for morality. If behaving practically, rather than morally, makes us all better off, wealthier, healthier, and etc, then there is no reason to be moral. Or, to put it otherwise, morality is only as useful insofar as it makes our lives better. To wit, perhaps it is immoral to tell any lie, as in the categorical imperative, but if I am hiding Jews in the basement, and Nazis are knocking on the door, then the categorical imperative can take a long fucking hike.

I am not very empathetic. Actually, I may not be, at all, since I'm not sure what empathy should be. Perhaps then, I am missing some key component of moral decision making. But it seems to me that, if one wants to consider matters of morality, one should not start with moral rules and work up to what we should do, but, rather, discard our impulses, consider what works best to create a better world with less suffering, and then construct moral rules from that. In the same way that we understand medical science, originating our theories on the basis of what is best for the patients (i.e., all of us) and then creating goals and rules for general behavior from there. That is understandable, objective, rational, and, hopefully, more workable.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

Yeah, considering Western culture has practiced racism, slavery, misogyny and such things in its past and continues to do so in certain quarters, I can't see how it can be objectively argued to be superior.

See that Saede there with her freedom to not get kneecapped and dragged away by government thugs for the crime of being? That's why we're better.

Because we still fuck up, both individually and corporately, but our system can change for the better and is doing so.

[Seriphyn]

This attitude of "that's why we're better" is precisely the reason why these geopolitical fault lines are emerging.

If people overcame their arrogance in this thread and actually read up on these cultures, rather than relying on demagoguery they read on reddit or tumblr, they will learn that hateful behavior in these other societies stem from ignorance and poor education rather than cultural prerogative.

Go check out the thousands of NGOs in India to see it all run by ethnic Indians. Go see all those who protest against rape and acid throwing in the Middle East and South Asia; certainly isn't a group of foreign white crusaders.  The claiming of "We're so better" without knowing one first hand thing about another culture is shocking, and borderlines on a word I'd rather not accuse anyone of.

I'd like to see if the Far Right take control of Europe again, and see if we still want to praise our superiority as we lock up Muslims and immigrants.