5 ms·

> 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 c

> 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.

cornholio 9y ago
You keep saying "Western values" as if it's a cultural artifact of the West. What I'm saying is that even if the West had a role in defining a set of universal liberal values and maybe embraced them to a greater degree than other cultures, I still support them as universal values not cultural norms (personal biases aside - and I'm not a westerner, BTW). If you want, we can debate each and every one and I will argue for it on principle, not chauvinistic conviction that the western social order is superior. For your example, theocracy is in direct contradiction with freedom of conscience. In order for the concept of theocracy to have any practical sense, the society must contain dissenters against whom the theocratic law is formulated and applied - otherwise we would have a purely consensual society that wouldn't need such laws, just like there is no law mandating people should breathe. The logical consequence is that the theocratic society is a repressive one against some of its members - so it is, by the very cultural values of some its members, not mine, an inferior one to the liberal order, while not being better for the religious majority; unless you accept enforcement of religious norms against others (jihad) as a legitimate value theocracy provides to the majority. You could do that, of course, being hellbent to prove the contradiction at the heart of liberal doctrine, but you would place yourself in such absolute moral relativism that it would make you unable to take any position on any political issue. A liberal might find his political options limited and distasteful, especially in the international matters. A complete moral relativist has no position and no interest. > 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? Isn't any military conflict always a clash of values? The value of recovering the motherland, of imposing a master race, of plundering, of deposing a ruthless dictator. It seems cultures have no other option than to judge each other if there is to be any interaction: even such a minor thing like a commercial transaction could help, say, a militaristic nation build a nuclear device. It's irrelevant then what value the nuke has for that foreign culture - what matters is that its existence threatens our values, so we are directly and chauvinistically projecting them in international trade. The right to judge other cultures, and be judged by them, is an axiom of international relations.

cornholio 9y ago

You keep saying "Western values" as if it's a cultural artifact of the West. What I'm saying is that even if the West had a role in defining a set of universal liberal values and maybe embraced them to a greater degree than other cultures, I still support them as universal values not cultural norms (personal biases aside - and I'm not a westerner, BTW). If you want, we can debate each and every one and I will argue for it on principle, not chauvinistic conviction that the western social order is superior. For your example, theocracy is in direct contradiction with freedom of conscience. In order for the concept of theocracy to have any practical sense, the society must contain dissenters against whom the theocratic law is formulated and applied - otherwise we would have a purely consensual society that wouldn't need such laws, just like there is no law mandating people should breathe. The logical consequence is that the theocratic society is a repressive one against some of its members - so it is, by the very cultural values of some its members, not mine, an inferior one to the liberal order, while not being better for the religious majority; unless you accept enforcement of religious norms against others (jihad) as a legitimate value theocracy provides to the majority. You could do that, of course, being hellbent to prove the contradiction at the heart of liberal doctrine, but you would place yourself in such absolute moral relativism that it would make you unable to take any position on any political issue. A liberal might find his political options limited and distasteful, especially in the international matters. A complete moral relativist has no position and no interest. > 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? Isn't any military conflict always a clash of values? The value of recovering the motherland, of imposing a master race, of plundering, of deposing a ruthless dictator. It seems cultures have no other option than to judge each other if there is to be any interaction: even such a minor thing like a commercial transaction could help, say, a militaristic nation build a nuclear device. It's irrelevant then what value the nuke has for that foreign culture - what matters is that its existence threatens our values, so we are directly and chauvinistically projecting them in international trade. The right to judge other cultures, and be judged by them, is an axiom of international relations.