3 ms·

"No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fort

by lwhi 16y ago

"No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fortunate than them." "Whether they're right or not is another issue [..]" Morals are all about right or wrong - you can't have it both ways. -- The OPs belief is entirely objectionable. Have none of us learnt anything from history? EDIT: Actually, maybe that wasn't quite strong enough. The OPs belief is utterly abhorrent. It's from the same school of thought that's used in attempts at 'ethnic cleansing'.

Groxx 16y ago
Morals are, beliefs are not. And since morals are heavily heavily based on beliefs, they are heavily influenced by the person who is determining right and wrong. One person can't have it both ways. Two can have opposing viewpoints and still be completely, logically correct in their own eyes. It's a fundamental aspect of communication between different entities.
- lwhi 16y ago
  I'm sorry, but I call BS.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Then you need some philosophy, metaphysics, and Lincoln-Douglas style debate classes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_Debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_Debate edit: how about a starting point (in no way intended to be snide / insulting, I'm entirely serious about this): Murder is wrong, right? Why? Completely objectively, why?
    - lwhi 16y ago
      My previous reply was a bit terse - sorry. I was referring to two (apparent) opposite points of view, and it seemed like you were using semantics to disagree. I read the last part of that sentence as you personally stating that the OP had a moral obligation, which I now realise might have been incorrect. -- I understand that people form their own moral compass, and that views differ - but sometimes, I think there are issues which are so universally felt that the whole of society has to learn how to deal with them in a united way. There are so many examples of self-proclaimed 'superior' societies dominating and assimilating smaller cultures which aren't able to defend themselves. Many of these examples are well documented and - now that we have the benefit of hindsight, we can see exactly what kind of effect was left behind. I think most people can agree that gross injustices took place. -- Would you voice any objection to a holocaust denier?
      - Groxx 16y ago
        The cultural contamination taboo is pretty clearly not so "universally felt", though. You must contaminate (significantly) to discover their decision so you can respect it, or you must prevent all contamination, when you could be improving their lives (note: could be. To disagree is to state our/your culture / technology is in every way deficient compared to theirs, the "noble savage" viewpoint). Whether it's a majority opinion or not, it's hard to say. I encounter both sides very regularly, while you apparently don't. Such is life. As to the holocaust deniers, yes, I would. Because I disagree with them, and because it's essentially an intentionally-ignorant standpoint that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. --- But as to contaminate-or-not, I do prefer contamination so they can choose. Otherwise, it seems to me we're treating them like animals in a zoo, incapable of choosing intelligently for themselves. It also implies our culture is just so virulent that any who come in contact with it are sure to lose their way, join us heathens, and destroy their culture; again, insulting their intelligence and based on what's essentially a superiority complex. For myself, I'll always choose contamination over being walled off. Others will disagree. But until we're capable of knowing they disagree, we either force some contamination to find out or we force them behind walls, taking away their choice. I find walls to be more offensive to sentients as a whole.
uvdiv 16y ago
It's your ludicrous conflation of the OP's genuine concern for the material welfare of these people with "ethnic cleansing" that's abhorrent.
- lwhi 16y ago
  Okay, it's an extreme example .. but it definitely exists on the same side of the scale. -- Look at what happened to Australian Aboriginals - the settlers who separated kids from their families had the best of intentions - but they also had a sense of superiority which gave them an utter contempt for the culture of the children in question. There are some parallels between those settlers and the OP's statement: "There is nothing good or enviable about uncivilized lifestyles to preserve; any actions that maintain them in that lifestyle are ensuring they literally die young, mostly of preventable causes." EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation
  - Groxx 16y ago
    I've got to agree with the parent to yours, it's still a different scale. Ethnic cleansing seeks to destroy that which is different. Ethno-centric superiority complexes (like this, not necessarily all) seek to improve that which is different. They are capable of causing the similar outcomes, but I know of no examples (they didn't kill the children), and the motivations are almost total opposites. Both are essentially insulting to the other group though, absolutely, but in different ways.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      Maybe children weren't killed, but Australian Aboriginal society has been completely decimated - many of the stories involved are heartbreaking, and these people now have many many more problems that ever before. I'm sure that regimes that take part in ethnic cleansing believe that they're doing the right thing. A sense of superiority helps them to make their choices. Whether violence is used or not, in some ways, the effect is the same. EDIT: If you read about these people and the problems that they're facing, it's not difficult to see that they were pretty much undeniably better off before. It's nothing but a tragedy - and their ill-treatment even continues to this day.
lyudmil 16y ago
"Morals are all about right or wrong - you can't have it both ways." Bullshit! While morals are about distinctions between right or wrong, the only moral debates worth having are ones that are about conflicting moral principles. In this case, between the moral principle that says we should allow people to determine and preserve their own culture and the principle that we want people to have the highest quality of life possible. It involves clashing interests and ill-defined concepts, so, yes, you can have it both ways. That's why it's a debate.
- lwhi 16y ago
  I was referring to the fact that two opposing statements had been made.

by lwhi 16y ago

Groxx 16y ago

Morals are, beliefs are not. And since morals are heavily heavily based on beliefs, they are heavily influenced by the person who is determining right and wrong. One person can't have it both ways. Two can have opposing viewpoints and still be completely, logically correct in their own eyes. It's a fundamental aspect of communication between different entities.

lwhi 16y ago
I'm sorry, but I call BS.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Then you need some philosophy, metaphysics, and Lincoln-Douglas style debate classes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_Debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_Debate edit: how about a starting point (in no way intended to be snide / insulting, I'm entirely serious about this): Murder is wrong, right? Why? Completely objectively, why?
  - lwhi 16y ago
    My previous reply was a bit terse - sorry. I was referring to two (apparent) opposite points of view, and it seemed like you were using semantics to disagree. I read the last part of that sentence as you personally stating that the OP had a moral obligation, which I now realise might have been incorrect. -- I understand that people form their own moral compass, and that views differ - but sometimes, I think there are issues which are so universally felt that the whole of society has to learn how to deal with them in a united way. There are so many examples of self-proclaimed 'superior' societies dominating and assimilating smaller cultures which aren't able to defend themselves. Many of these examples are well documented and - now that we have the benefit of hindsight, we can see exactly what kind of effect was left behind. I think most people can agree that gross injustices took place. -- Would you voice any objection to a holocaust denier?
    - Groxx 16y ago
      The cultural contamination taboo is pretty clearly not so "universally felt", though. You must contaminate (significantly) to discover their decision so you can respect it, or you must prevent all contamination, when you could be improving their lives (note: could be. To disagree is to state our/your culture / technology is in every way deficient compared to theirs, the "noble savage" viewpoint). Whether it's a majority opinion or not, it's hard to say. I encounter both sides very regularly, while you apparently don't. Such is life. As to the holocaust deniers, yes, I would. Because I disagree with them, and because it's essentially an intentionally-ignorant standpoint that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. --- But as to contaminate-or-not, I do prefer contamination so they can choose. Otherwise, it seems to me we're treating them like animals in a zoo, incapable of choosing intelligently for themselves. It also implies our culture is just so virulent that any who come in contact with it are sure to lose their way, join us heathens, and destroy their culture; again, insulting their intelligence and based on what's essentially a superiority complex. For myself, I'll always choose contamination over being walled off. Others will disagree. But until we're capable of knowing they disagree, we either force some contamination to find out or we force them behind walls, taking away their choice. I find walls to be more offensive to sentients as a whole.

uvdiv 16y ago

It's your ludicrous conflation of the OP's genuine concern for the material welfare of these people with "ethnic cleansing" that's abhorrent.

lwhi 16y ago
Okay, it's an extreme example .. but it definitely exists on the same side of the scale. -- Look at what happened to Australian Aboriginals - the settlers who separated kids from their families had the best of intentions - but they also had a sense of superiority which gave them an utter contempt for the culture of the children in question. There are some parallels between those settlers and the OP's statement: "There is nothing good or enviable about uncivilized lifestyles to preserve; any actions that maintain them in that lifestyle are ensuring they literally die young, mostly of preventable causes." EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation
- Groxx 16y ago
  I've got to agree with the parent to yours, it's still a different scale. Ethnic cleansing seeks to destroy that which is different. Ethno-centric superiority complexes (like this, not necessarily all) seek to improve that which is different. They are capable of causing the similar outcomes, but I know of no examples (they didn't kill the children), and the motivations are almost total opposites. Both are essentially insulting to the other group though, absolutely, but in different ways.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Maybe children weren't killed, but Australian Aboriginal society has been completely decimated - many of the stories involved are heartbreaking, and these people now have many many more problems that ever before. I'm sure that regimes that take part in ethnic cleansing believe that they're doing the right thing. A sense of superiority helps them to make their choices. Whether violence is used or not, in some ways, the effect is the same. EDIT: If you read about these people and the problems that they're facing, it's not difficult to see that they were pretty much undeniably better off before. It's nothing but a tragedy - and their ill-treatment even continues to this day.

lyudmil 16y ago

"Morals are all about right or wrong - you can't have it both ways." Bullshit! While morals are about distinctions between right or wrong, the only moral debates worth having are ones that are about conflicting moral principles. In this case, between the moral principle that says we should allow people to determine and preserve their own culture and the principle that we want people to have the highest quality of life possible. It involves clashing interests and ill-defined concepts, so, yes, you can have it both ways. That's why it's a debate.

lwhi 16y ago
I was referring to the fact that two opposing statements had been made.