3 ms·

That's a perfectly fine, full-throated endorsement of Western values and I'm glad you are willing to take that position. Just remember though that under this r

That's a perfectly fine, full-throated endorsement of Western values and I'm glad you are willing to take that position. Just remember though that under this rubric, it's very likely that you and fellow liberals in Western societies are going to be sitting in judgment of other cultures to decide the meaning of the terms 'freedom' and 'rights' — even if people in those cultures disagree with your definitions, or if even if they decide that other things are more important to them than freedom. That sounds like a very weak form of multiculturalism, one that only accepts other cultures only if they are already compatible with the value systems of the West—which basically presumes the inherent superiority of Western value systems over all others. That also immediately leads to the question of what gives you the moral authority to judge other peoples and societies, and finding them wanting. When the West was Christian, that question was easy to answer—Christians have access to the true faith. I'm not sure what the answer would be today.

cornholio 9y ago
The dichotomy between "Western values" and alternate, "cultural" values is specious - unless we are talking about traditional, Judeo-Christian values that strongly clash with liberalism. There is only one set of basic human rights for our species. Where I do agree with you is that recognition of those rights is a political problem, and we have no normative source, we must define them in multilateral treaties with respect to cultural norms. I also agree that the main ideological driver of that effort, the western philosophical tradition, probably has strong cultural biases that need to be recognized. That being said, there is no concrete alternate philosophic tradition that makes an argument for pedophilia or gay repression - just backward places that prefer it that way. All cultures are not created equal, and if that makes me a very weak multiculturalist, so be it. There must be a point at which tolerance must cease and accept that yes, West has the moral upper hand on some subjects; otherwise the road of infinite moral relativism leads to hell: the inability to recognize and act against even the most barbaric abuses - for fear we might break some earthly version of the First directive. >even if people in those cultures disagree with your definitions, or if even if they decide that other things are more important to them than freedom. Freedom, by definition, means the ability to choose what is more important for you. So there's absolutely no contradiction if the people of the world find no use for Western-analogue freedoms. The majority of westerners don't use the majority of their freedoms.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  > The dichotomy between "Western values" and alternate, "cultural" values is specious I strongly disagree, although I'm glad that you're willing to state the case so plainly. Are you saying that there are literally no cultures out there (whether modern or traditional) that disagree with the West on such fundamental questions like 'how should people be ruled?' or 'what is justice?' One example of incompatibility would be how the Islamic tradition explicitly calls for the union of religion and state into theocratic government. This directly contradicts freedom of religion. This goes to the crux of what I would say is the modern-day form of chauvinism—the implicit assumption that, say, all peoples throughout the world desire liberal democracy along formal Western lines. We've seen repeatedly how this naivite can result in disaster in, say, Russia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. > All cultures are not created equal Unless I'm misreading, you are immediately contradicting what you said above—so there are cultures that fundamentally disagree with the Western liberal order (including, perhaps, some people in the West who still call themselves Christians). So then the question becomes, what gives you the right to judge other people? And if you are OK with judging others, then why can't they turn around and judge you and say that you are wrong instead? Are you willing to impose your values by military force in the case of disagreement? > Freedom, by definition, means the ability to choose what is more important for you Well, let's say China claims that their people have no use for Western-style democracy and human rights and that the Chinese civilization prefers to go its own way, plus then China does some things that the West finds objectionable (locking up dissidents?). From the perspective of the West, it would appear to me that the choices are: 1. Outright reject that it's the legitimate will of Chinese people (the denial that other peoples can reject a Western conception of universal human rights; e.g. their people must truly desire rights but they are oppressed. This is chauvinism by definition—other people can't possibly choose something other than Western norms) 1a. ... and rectify this situation by force (we will take on the White Man's burden and free them ... from theirselves). I presume you'd find this choice distasteful. 1b. ... let things be for the sake of peace (we will lecture you on how you're wrong, but do nothing concrete). 2. Accept the legitimacy of non-liberal political systems (but if it's OK for China, then why not for other places?) I think all of these choices are ultimately distasteful to a modern liberal.
  - 9y ago

cornholio 9y ago

The dichotomy between "Western values" and alternate, "cultural" values is specious - unless we are talking about traditional, Judeo-Christian values that strongly clash with liberalism. There is only one set of basic human rights for our species. Where I do agree with you is that recognition of those rights is a political problem, and we have no normative source, we must define them in multilateral treaties with respect to cultural norms. I also agree that the main ideological driver of that effort, the western philosophical tradition, probably has strong cultural biases that need to be recognized. That being said, there is no concrete alternate philosophic tradition that makes an argument for pedophilia or gay repression - just backward places that prefer it that way. All cultures are not created equal, and if that makes me a very weak multiculturalist, so be it. There must be a point at which tolerance must cease and accept that yes, West has the moral upper hand on some subjects; otherwise the road of infinite moral relativism leads to hell: the inability to recognize and act against even the most barbaric abuses - for fear we might break some earthly version of the First directive. >even if people in those cultures disagree with your definitions, or if even if they decide that other things are more important to them than freedom. Freedom, by definition, means the ability to choose what is more important for you. So there's absolutely no contradiction if the people of the world find no use for Western-analogue freedoms. The majority of westerners don't use the majority of their freedoms.

smallnamespace 9y ago
> The dichotomy between "Western values" and alternate, "cultural" values is specious I strongly disagree, although I'm glad that you're willing to state the case so plainly. Are you saying that there are literally no cultures out there (whether modern or traditional) that disagree with the West on such fundamental questions like 'how should people be ruled?' or 'what is justice?' One example of incompatibility would be how the Islamic tradition explicitly calls for the union of religion and state into theocratic government. This directly contradicts freedom of religion. This goes to the crux of what I would say is the modern-day form of chauvinism—the implicit assumption that, say, all peoples throughout the world desire liberal democracy along formal Western lines. We've seen repeatedly how this naivite can result in disaster in, say, Russia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. > All cultures are not created equal Unless I'm misreading, you are immediately contradicting what you said above—so there are cultures that fundamentally disagree with the Western liberal order (including, perhaps, some people in the West who still call themselves Christians). So then the question becomes, what gives you the right to judge other people? And if you are OK with judging others, then why can't they turn around and judge you and say that you are wrong instead? Are you willing to impose your values by military force in the case of disagreement? > Freedom, by definition, means the ability to choose what is more important for you Well, let's say China claims that their people have no use for Western-style democracy and human rights and that the Chinese civilization prefers to go its own way, plus then China does some things that the West finds objectionable (locking up dissidents?). From the perspective of the West, it would appear to me that the choices are: 1. Outright reject that it's the legitimate will of Chinese people (the denial that other peoples can reject a Western conception of universal human rights; e.g. their people must truly desire rights but they are oppressed. This is chauvinism by definition—other people can't possibly choose something other than Western norms) 1a. ... and rectify this situation by force (we will take on the White Man's burden and free them ... from theirselves). I presume you'd find this choice distasteful. 1b. ... let things be for the sake of peace (we will lecture you on how you're wrong, but do nothing concrete). 2. Accept the legitimacy of non-liberal political systems (but if it's OK for China, then why not for other places?) I think all of these choices are ultimately distasteful to a modern liberal.
- 9y ago