Deon, I cannot see how you formulate your argument:
"If you believe in an absolute concept of morality: that some things are always morally wrong, then you must acknowledge that there are times when a culture must loose certain traits."
We only set the standard on human rights because America lets us. Before that, you should note some of the worst abuses of human rights came from the west: The British developed and used the concept of the Concentration camp during the Boer War, they used chemical warfare to drug China to it's knees. What about the US? The incredible abuses of the native Americans...one word..Reserves.
So if you are going to be pointing fingers at Islamic culture, Hindu cultures etc...point the finger our way too. Think about the Masters & Servants act of (I think) 1871...that was slavery in its most codified form.
I don't really think your statement that the west has "lost the moral high-ground"...mostly because I firmly believe that we never had it to start with.
I agree in part with what you are saying. The West has done some horrible things in the past, and indeed, under the banner of the USA is doing some terrible things right now. However, most of the time is it due to a division between what we say we stand for (democracy, freedom, human rights) and what we actually do
( ... )
Sorry Deon, I just simply cannot see how you can say that the deeds are not important. Those deeds are in reality millions of dead people. It doesn't really matter what we say if we are still allowing these things to happen.
A smaller example: Person A honestly doesn't have a problem with homosexuality but then uses the words "faggot, poofter, fag-bashing" etc. He may well support gay rights, but if he is saying things like that...he is branded as a homophobe.
If that same person claims he doesn't mind homosexuality, but in reality thinks that it is unnatural and will actively persecute gay people...are the words he says the important thing?
America claims it is there to help and yet is actively engaged on an imperialist kick...but they say they are helping...that must make it ok.
When I say deeds not-so-much, I don't mean that deeds are not important. After all, I hold Viet-Nam as having higher moral strength than the West as they alone went into Cambodia and deposed the Khmer Rouge.
Consider it more as a spectrum approaching some perfect point:
Ignoring Human Rights Completely--> Believing in Human Rights (but ignoring them when convinient)--> Believing in Human Rights and Acting upon them.
You can see that you can't get to the end without passing through the middle stage: and I believe that some of the West (perhaps Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand) are in the third stage already. Believing in something is a step towards making it real.
I will revise my position, as you have raised an excellent point. I still think I am right to dismiss negative deeds (as besides the four countries mentioned, everyone is still doing them) but positive deeds (as in directly doing something to remove human rights abusers) are amazingly important as they are so rare.
True enough, but I also think that it is impossible to really set down that countries should model their human rights policies on the West. In China for example, they have way too many people. To us, the loss of 1 person is too much to countenance, but to China, the loss of 100 people means that 100 other people get food and jobs. To them, that is acceptable human rights...why are we correct and they are not? Simple, because for the most part, despite protestations to the opposite, we mostly think along a deontological moral code (Christian code for that matter).
Still, I must admit that this is a great post. Thanks for it.
Actually, as deontological code means "the science which relates to duty or moral obligation" I dare say that the Chinese (for the some three thousand years of their civilisation) have been operating on a deontological fashion (based on ren (benevolence) and li(the rites)).
A better argument would be that the West thinks in terms of individuals, whilst China tends to think in terms of relationships (hence the most serious punishment of killing all the family of the guilty party, and leaving the criminal alive.)
Furthermore it is a mistake to believe that most of our statements on human rights are from the Christians. Democracy and freedoms of speech, as well as equality of the sexes, races and sexualities are closer to pre-existing Roman and Greek codes, rather than the documents of the early Church (for instance: check out Corinthians, which pretty much hammers free speech and womens rights)
"If you believe in an absolute concept of morality: that some things are always morally wrong, then you must acknowledge that there are times when a culture must loose certain traits."
We only set the standard on human rights because America lets us. Before that, you should note some of the worst abuses of human rights came from the west: The British developed and used the concept of the Concentration camp during the Boer War, they used chemical warfare to drug China to it's knees. What about the US? The incredible abuses of the native Americans...one word..Reserves.
So if you are going to be pointing fingers at Islamic culture, Hindu cultures etc...point the finger our way too. Think about the Masters & Servants act of (I think) 1871...that was slavery in its most codified form.
I don't really think your statement that the west has "lost the moral high-ground"...mostly because I firmly believe that we never had it to start with.
Reply
Reply
A smaller example: Person A honestly doesn't have a problem with homosexuality but then uses the words "faggot, poofter, fag-bashing" etc. He may well support gay rights, but if he is saying things like that...he is branded as a homophobe.
If that same person claims he doesn't mind homosexuality, but in reality thinks that it is unnatural and will actively persecute gay people...are the words he says the important thing?
America claims it is there to help and yet is actively engaged on an imperialist kick...but they say they are helping...that must make it ok.
Reply
Consider it more as a spectrum approaching some perfect point:
Ignoring Human Rights Completely--> Believing in Human Rights (but ignoring them when convinient)--> Believing in Human Rights and Acting upon them.
You can see that you can't get to the end without passing through the middle stage: and I believe that some of the West (perhaps Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand) are in the third stage already. Believing in something is a step towards making it real.
Reply
All I am saying is that Deeds are much much more important at every stage.
Reply
Reply
Still, I must admit that this is a great post. Thanks for it.
Cheers
Kane
Reply
A better argument would be that the West thinks in terms of individuals, whilst China tends to think in terms of relationships (hence the most serious punishment of killing all the family of the guilty party, and leaving the criminal alive.)
Furthermore it is a mistake to believe that most of our statements on human rights are from the Christians. Democracy and freedoms of speech, as well as equality of the sexes, races and sexualities are closer to pre-existing Roman and Greek codes, rather than the documents of the early Church (for instance: check out Corinthians, which pretty much hammers free speech and womens rights)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment