4 ms·

There are important questions about the nature of social progress here. The situation in Brazil is not all that different, ethical-relativity-wise, than the si

There are important questions about the nature of social progress here. The situation in Brazil is not all that different, ethical-relativity-wise, than the situation between, say, Iran and Finland. Iranian law requires capital punishment for many behaviors which Finland (which has outlawed the death penalty altogether) would not consider illegal or forbidden in any way. There is a big difference in degree between those kinds of situations--size of community, scale of killing, et cetera--but the same fundamental questions emerge from both: Are some communities codes (laws) "more ethical" than others? In other words: fiating that morality exists as a qualifiable (if hard to qualify in an agreed-upon way) thing, is it also quantifiable? If so, are the "more ethical" communities morally allowed (or obligated, even) to encourage/demand that "less ethical" communities change their codes? If that is so, is there a difference-in-degree below which "more/less ethical" becomes meaningless--i.e. is "group A sacrifices Emacs users to the Vim-dragon every day, but group B only makes the sacrifices on the day of the full moon; therefore group B is necessarily more humane" an instance of progress via incrementalism or false virtuosity? What role does the massive power imbalance between the "more ethical" state in this instance (Brazil) and the "less ethical" groups (indigenous/isolated communities) play in determining how the conflict should be resolved? For example, if child-killing was practiced, say, by a large nation-state and the USA decided that, due to this practice, it would impose US law on that nation-state by force, would the situation be any different?* * given the US's justification for some of its past wars, this is less than hypothetical. Edits: typos.

sjg007 8y ago
There is the idea of universal human rights that persists outside of the nation state. Trade is a major lever and failing that war. This is why NK wants nukes because then we can’t invade on concern over human rights. But yes there is a more ethical and moral path and some nations are more ethical/moral than others. Some argue that we have a duty to interfere and others follow the Star Trek prime directive as the guiding principal. A compromise in Brazil would be for the tribes to give the children up for adoption or to the State.

sjg007 8y ago

There is the idea of universal human rights that persists outside of the nation state. Trade is a major lever and failing that war. This is why NK wants nukes because then we can’t invade on concern over human rights. But yes there is a more ethical and moral path and some nations are more ethical/moral than others. Some argue that we have a duty to interfere and others follow the Star Trek prime directive as the guiding principal. A compromise in Brazil would be for the tribes to give the children up for adoption or to the State.