3 ms·

Of course we can judge, we even have some standardized criterias to use. Adherence to the basic human rights as laid out by the UN. I would say any society who

by hkon 10y ago

Of course we can judge, we even have some standardized criterias to use. Adherence to the basic human rights as laid out by the UN. I would say any society who adheres the closest to the human rights is the best. The further away, the lower rank it has. I don't have to live somewhere for an extended period of time to make judgements based on established "best practises" for human societies.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Human rights is largely a Western idea [1] and the UN was founded, dominated, and run largely by Western nations (Russia is sort of half-way between East and West in that sense), so your argument reduces to 'any society that best adheres to Western political and social norms is the best'. You may even be correct that Western norms are objectively the best way to run a society. It just seems to me that you're remarkably unwilling to analyze or challenge your own cultural biases and assumptions even a little bit, even though that careful, rational analysis is very much part of Western culture. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#16th.E2.80.9318th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#16th.E2.80.9318th...
- hkon 10y ago
  Yes, thanks for clarifying the origin of human rights. It makes the west even better. Imagine, we came up with the concept. I also think you are agreeing with me, but for some reason you find my statements hard to accept. Sometimes challenge and analysis is good, sometimes it's a waste of time. I think this is a case of the latter.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    I don't agree with you at all. The best part of Western culture is rationalism and analysis. The West moved from monarchy to democracy and developed human rights over hundreds of years of smart people criticizing their own societies and asking how to improve it. That included studying other societies and keeping an open mind about what works best. That's day and night from your openly dismissive, close-minded attitude. To the original question, I think a naive and direct transplantation of Western political forms to China would be an unmitigated disaster precisely because of cultural differences. China should find its own path to creating a just society without slavishly and uncritically copying the West (but it should look abroad for good ideas).
    - fnovd 10y ago
      >That included studying other societies and keeping an open mind about what works best. Yes. What works best for the individual is different than what works best for the state, though. 'What if the state should be more important than the individual?' is not a traditional Western question.
      - smallnamespace 10y ago
        Food for thought though: Western philosophical thought prefers to draw distinctions between parts of a whole and then focus on how those parts are different and opposed. This is in contrast to Chinese philosophical thought, which stereotypically emphasizes the oneness and compatibility of disparate concepts. You can see this in how Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and other philosophical schools were all accepted and syncretized, while the West has always undergone violent ideological conflicts over relatively minor differences in doctrine (Protestantism vs. Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy). Of course the interests of the state and the people can sometimes come into conflict, but by and large, the state and the individual are part of an organic whole, namely, all of society. China's own political culture has had a long, long history pondering the question of what government's role should be, and has mostly concluded that a government must rule justly and well in order to be a legitimate [1]. The question is not be 'What's more important, the individual or the state?', but rather, 'How should society be organized so that the individual and the state will cooperate for mutual benefit?'. Just like one usually doesn't ask the question 'what's more important, the hand or the foot?'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#The_right_to_rule_and_the_right_of_rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#The_right_to... > Throughout the history of China, times of poverty and natural disasters were often taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement.
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      >China should find its own path to creating a just society without slavishly and uncritically copying the West (but it should look abroad for good ideas). The trouble is that doesn't seem to be the intention of those in power in China. Or is it your view that the elite in every society are sincerely interested in justice?
  - hkon 10y ago
    It's getting harder to reply because of time restrictions on HN. It is simple yes. And I agree with you that change must happen over many generations. And change must come from within. I'll just end with my opinion. Free speech good. Censorship bad. Respect human rights good. Disrespect human rights bad. I have no problem not questioning this. Good night. Thanks for the chat.

by hkon 10y ago

smallnamespace 10y ago

Human rights is largely a Western idea [1] and the UN was founded, dominated, and run largely by Western nations (Russia is sort of half-way between East and West in that sense), so your argument reduces to 'any society that best adheres to Western political and social norms is the best'. You may even be correct that Western norms are objectively the best way to run a society. It just seems to me that you're remarkably unwilling to analyze or challenge your own cultural biases and assumptions even a little bit, even though that careful, rational analysis is very much part of Western culture. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#16th.E2.80.9318th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#16th.E2.80.9318th...

hkon 10y ago
Yes, thanks for clarifying the origin of human rights. It makes the west even better. Imagine, we came up with the concept. I also think you are agreeing with me, but for some reason you find my statements hard to accept. Sometimes challenge and analysis is good, sometimes it's a waste of time. I think this is a case of the latter.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  I don't agree with you at all. The best part of Western culture is rationalism and analysis. The West moved from monarchy to democracy and developed human rights over hundreds of years of smart people criticizing their own societies and asking how to improve it. That included studying other societies and keeping an open mind about what works best. That's day and night from your openly dismissive, close-minded attitude. To the original question, I think a naive and direct transplantation of Western political forms to China would be an unmitigated disaster precisely because of cultural differences. China should find its own path to creating a just society without slavishly and uncritically copying the West (but it should look abroad for good ideas).
  - fnovd 10y ago
    >That included studying other societies and keeping an open mind about what works best. Yes. What works best for the individual is different than what works best for the state, though. 'What if the state should be more important than the individual?' is not a traditional Western question.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      Food for thought though: Western philosophical thought prefers to draw distinctions between parts of a whole and then focus on how those parts are different and opposed. This is in contrast to Chinese philosophical thought, which stereotypically emphasizes the oneness and compatibility of disparate concepts. You can see this in how Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and other philosophical schools were all accepted and syncretized, while the West has always undergone violent ideological conflicts over relatively minor differences in doctrine (Protestantism vs. Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy). Of course the interests of the state and the people can sometimes come into conflict, but by and large, the state and the individual are part of an organic whole, namely, all of society. China's own political culture has had a long, long history pondering the question of what government's role should be, and has mostly concluded that a government must rule justly and well in order to be a legitimate [1]. The question is not be 'What's more important, the individual or the state?', but rather, 'How should society be organized so that the individual and the state will cooperate for mutual benefit?'. Just like one usually doesn't ask the question 'what's more important, the hand or the foot?'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#The_right_to_rule_and_the_right_of_rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven#The_right_to... > Throughout the history of China, times of poverty and natural disasters were often taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    >China should find its own path to creating a just society without slavishly and uncritically copying the West (but it should look abroad for good ideas). The trouble is that doesn't seem to be the intention of those in power in China. Or is it your view that the elite in every society are sincerely interested in justice?
- hkon 10y ago
  It's getting harder to reply because of time restrictions on HN. It is simple yes. And I agree with you that change must happen over many generations. And change must come from within. I'll just end with my opinion. Free speech good. Censorship bad. Respect human rights good. Disrespect human rights bad. I have no problem not questioning this. Good night. Thanks for the chat.