This is ridiculous. Back in the 20th century, there was this guy - Woodrow Wilson. Maybe you've heard of him?? Nearly 100yrs ago, after there was a world war, he tried to persuade people that countries should have the right to self-determination. Wow, what a nuts idea that people should be able to decide for themselves about how they are governed. At the end of WW2 with the formation of the UN, the concept became even more widely known and was then a known idea within the realms of international law and diplomacy. Those people knew what war meant, they had seen it, felt it, been injured personally by it. They knew how precious peace was. My grandad was under 10, living in London, and he can tell you some harrowing stories. These people created the NHS and tried to be optimistic about a future without war. You can't, nor should you, forget all of that and just say that we know best! The people in the middle east have a right to do whatever they want. We're not doing it to be noble, we're doing it because it's in OUR interests. Wake up. Don't impose your secular standards on others. To them, Islam, and everything that comes with it, is the norm. It's impossible for a non-Muslim Brit to ever completely understand that.
So we should just ignore people committing horrific acts because it happens to go on beyond an imaginary line? No-one has the right to do "whatever" they want, no-one has the right to abuse young boys, or mutilate a pre-pubsecsant girl's genitals. Imposing secular standards on others is a damn good idea, religions come up with horrific religious norms and they reinforce and make it harder to tackle non-religious or cultural norms which either grow up around the religion or exist despite being obviously counter to the religion's teachings. This idea that everyone's opinion on the correct way to live life is equally correct is way past being put to bed. Some people's opinions on life, the universe, and everything are just wrong and should be tackled. I'm not saying there is only one right answer, just that some ways of living life are clearly the wrong ways.
While I understand and sympathise with the sentiment of your post, I don't think we invaded Iraq or Afghanistand because of female genital mutilation, child abuse or religious intolerance. As some have already mentioned, those things have been going on for many years while the west turned a blind eye, until some powers decided that it would be in their interest to occupy those nations, at which point they began looking for excuses to do so. +1
Bah, Religion. All focus on the "hope" that there is an afterlife and that you must abide by a book of rules in life to get there... Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. +stands with his Space Marine armour on and awaits tirade of insults+
Basically doesn't matter imo. The double standards, the fact that we use imposition of superior morality as a justification for more practical reasons - doesn't matter. So long as we actually enforce the morality then it's a coincidental and very positive byproduct. Also, I think it's important to note that not immediately doing something, and turning a blind eye, are not the same thing. Frankly if I were to suggest we immediately invade every country which has systematically messed up morals, I don't think combining all the european and north american militaries available would be enough. We live in a very morally messed up world. A small number of states can't go changing every single one instantly, gotta start somewhere, and I wish it was Afghanistan.
We'd be looking at worldwide annihlation in about six hours after the event starts lets be honest. Humanity doesn't do to well when it comes to a moral outlook on what we can and cannot do. But at the same time, the past is the past. We really should be looking forward these days, instead of hating everyone and everything for what Country A did to Country S all those years ago. While I understand it can be fresh in those minds and isolationism isn't good (Look at the North Korean nutters), something makes me think a nice backhand of justice to every world leader would go down a treat before they decide to dictate morals upon others... actually everyone should probably have that slap +commits self slap act+
Morality is transient and merely a standard agree upon by the majority of a society. Who are we, to say that they are "wrong"?? Sex slaves were common throughout ancient Greece and that country was the origin of democracy and western civilisation. Whatever your opinion on what goes on in other person's country, does not justify you invading it and trying to make them do things your way. There is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. Everything is subjective.
I think that is where we differ. You think it is possible to do something morally good even by immoral (or morally dubious) means. The end justifies the means. I disagree; your actions are inseparable from their results. The outcome is only as good as the process by which they were obtained. You cannot save the village by bombing it. And as such, in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are failing to uphold the morality that we proselytise. Okenobi makes a good point. We live off the fruits of people who had experienced war first-hand; who had a vision of something better and made real sacrifices, and had to get over real loss and move on without grudge or desire for revenge to make it happen. They had to be wiser and nobler than the previous generation. We now live the better lives that we do through their efforts and by extention think that we inherited their wisdom and nobility too. We haven't. We are spoiled children with a sense of entitlement and superiority we have done nothing to deserve. We are standing on the shoulders of giants pretending to be taller than them.
Moral subjectivity really is one of those childish fancies which rarely lasts in those who choose to properly explore the philosophy of morality. If everything truly were subjective you'd have no moral problem with me raping your mother and drowning your father. I mean sure, you'd be upset, but you'd just say "Oh well, that's his morality, guess I shouldn't judge" - right? Thought not, so let's abandon moral relativity before we get too caught up in thinking it's in any way a valid system. You're right about Greece, they had all sorts of slaves - we do not. Our morality is superior to theirs. Not that complicated really. But I'm not saying we should go somewhere and save villages, I'm simply saying that in the past we've gone places and just burnt the village down and built a new better one with the people who (mostly) survived. If you want long term change you have to think in long term ways. Ah but to an extent we are, when we stand on their shoulders we see further and better than they did (btw, did you know that whole line was a slur against some victorian short-arse scholar with a stooped back?).
This is the crux of my problem with your argument and that of my government and most of the people around me. WE ARE NOT SUPERIOR. We are just as flawed as everyone else. That kind of language starts wars. Nexxo understood what I was trying to say. You, and millions of others, ignore it. Everything IS subjective. The human experience is subjective. We only imposed objectivity for our own convenience and to make it easier to relate to one another. That however, is a secondary argument. The real point here, is that as Nexxo says, the ends do not justify the means. Civilisations are measured by their means and we fall short. Let he without sin cast the first stone etc.
Yes, and we expect them to be grateful and our friends now. Except that they think in long-term ways too, and remember all their ancestors who got burned by us along with the village. Which kind of takes the shine off that new village. That new village becomes a symbol of crimes committed by us against them. Some more radical types might even argue that they should burn the new village and go back to the old one, forgetting it was not that great, because at least it was theirs. It's tricky like that. You can force people to change, but in doing do you teach them that change is obtained by force.
That's a bunch of hippie talk - just as flawed as everyone else, indeed no! Some people are more flawed than other people. Your assertion that everything is subjective is pretty baseless. Can't say I've ever studied an atom which is Hydrogen if one person looks at it but Boron if another person looks at it. As for the idea that all morality is subjective, well I've already given a pretty damn good retort to that notion.
You're saying that everyone is equally flawed? Are we? Surely that's something in your eyes, while I (i'll be cruel) see my own views as right? This seems to be coming to the idea that humanity is one big Chaos Theory!
What he is saying is we are no better/no more right/no more morally superior than anyone else as a whole. and i agree.
That I get, but he said everyone is as flawed... how can the flawed be more flawed than the flawed flawed flawed? If you get me? It's like dividing by 2 until you get that 0.00000000000000000001 number then the e- comes up to prevent division by zero on MS calculator really. He's right on the case of no-one having the right to decide who believes in what and/or what goes on (morals wise). But at the same-time, surely allowing children to have an education and live life like us instead of abusing them... is superior? or am I just totally missing the point... ... as he goes on lunch to get a pastie from Greggs...
Yeah but it's wrong, that's the thing. South Africa has a murder rate many times that of Germany, that makes Germany a place which on the whole is morally superior to South Africa. India has far lower rates of forced female genital mutilation than say Sudan - where the practise is near universal and completely accepted - that puts India on the moral highground and Sudan somewhere below the sewers. Yeah, but change is obtained by force quite often. Slavery was begun by force, but it was also ended by force. Rape, when it is stopped by the potential victim, is often stopped by force, and it is certainly punished by force. South Korea was kept free and the will of its people carried out by force. Hitler (G-G-G-Godwin!) was defeated by force, I don't see Germans getting pissy and burning down the Berlin that was basically rebuilt by America, France, Russia, and the UK because hell, at least "it was theirs". Achievements by force are not always inherently negative. I see what you mean about people thinking in the long-term and remembering the atrocities committed against their ancestors, but I don't envisage the Indians or Black Americans coming to the UK and bombing us because our ancestors did something nasty to their ancestors and and as a result they have way better lives than they would have had. I recognise it's a potential problem though.
Although I agree with Spec that our morality is better (a bit more mature, at least) than that of more fundamentalist cultures (you can't put a relative perspective on female circumcision or 'honour killings', really), I think that being the Better Guys Than The Seriously Messed-Up Guys does not automatically make us the Good Guys. That is not what Spec is saying either, but that seems to be what people are reading. Where Spec and I differ is that just because we have better morals does not inherently make our actions that promote those morals --whether inadvertently or intentionally-- morally better actions. We can still be hypocrites; we can still pave a road to Hell with our good intentions. The church made that mistake: how can we be wrong when we are so sincere? We can. The first step is to smugly pat ourselves on our own backs. Ida B. Wells said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. What people forget is that she was talking about watching our own government and ourselves.
Although I agree with Spec that our morality is better (a bit more mature, at least) than that of more fundamentalist cultures (you can't put a relative perspective on female circumcision or 'honour killings', really), I think that being the Better Guys Than The Seriously Messed-Up Guys does not automatically make us the Good Guys. That is not what Spec is saying either, but that seems to be what people are reading. Where Spec and I differ is that just because we have better morals does not inherently make our actions that promote those morals --whether inadvertently or intentionally-- morally better actions. We can still be hypocrites; we can still pave a road to Hell with our good intentions. The church made that mistake: how can we be wrong when we are so sincere? We can. The first step is to smugly pat ourselves on our own backs. Ida B. Wells said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. What people forget is that she was talking about watching our own government and ourselves.
I still disagree, over all our morals are just as bad/good as (insert random group here). Alot of things go on in the more 'mature' countries that a majority of the population turn a blind eye to.
Firstly, stop making me sound so damn reasonable. It's hard work cultivating an air of inflammatory extremism! I'm not saying we have the right moral system, that would be very arrogant. Just that we have a superior one to some other societies. The ancient Greeks had a superior moral system to certain other cultures of the day - but they were still mired in filth. So too are we, just less so. So I don't smugly pat myself on the back, in fact I myself believe that pretty much the entire country is living fairly immorally, including myself. But I still think my immorality pales in comparison to certain other culture's immorality - and so one is better than the other.
